at all of this and saying they're not going to vote to convict, so move on, get it over with. we've got covid business, we've got cabinet confirmations in the senate we need to do. we've got to move on to our agenda. >> yes, but he's also the president of the country that is being divided again by this. so what's going to happen today? this closes one chapter. it closes the second impeachment trial, assuming they finish today. but then it reopens the question, lindsey graham says he's off to mar-a-lago. kevin mccarthy goes off to mar-a-lago. what is former president trump's next move? does he stay quiet? i wouldn't bet on that. so joe biden does want to move on. he wants to get his cabinet confirmed and get a covid relief package. he will be judged not on the impeachment of donald trump, but he'll be judged on the vaccine rollout and does the economy bounce back with the vaccine rollout. he wants to get to it. but he's also the president of a country that is going through trump trauma, so he'll have to

speak to that. >> i think it's important to just note these past few weeks trump himself down in mar-a-lago, he's playing a little golf, probably watching a lot of television. he's been silent. >> he has been relatively silent. a few statements put out by what he calls the office of the 45th president. >> hold on. this session is about to begin. >> the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead us in prayer. order and the chaplain will lead us in prayer. >> let us pray. oh, lord, our god, yesterday this chamber reverberated to a standing ovation for the courage of officer eugene goodman in

defending this building and human life. may our legislative jurors strive to emulate his courage in their defense of the united states constitution. lord, touch and move them to believe that the end does not justify the means. help them to remember that the end is inherent and built into the means. fill our senators with a spirit that combines common sense with commitment, conscience and courage. we pray in your merciful name.

amen. >> please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge of allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> senators, please be seated. if there's no objection, the journal proceedings of the trial are approved to date and i would ask the sergeant in arms to make the proclamation. >> here ye, all persons are commanded to keep silence on

pain of imprisonment while the s senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against donald john trump, former president of the united states. >> and pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 47, the senate is provided up to two hours of argument by the parties, equally divided, on the question of whether or not there should be an order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. are both parties ready to proceed at this point? they may proceed.

>> thank you, mr. president, good morning, senators. over the last several days we presented overwhelming evidence that establishes the charges in the article of impeachment, we've shown you how president trump created a powder keg, lit a match and then continued his incitement even as he failed to defend us from the ensuing violence. we've supported our position with images, videos, affidavits, documents, tweets and other evidence, leaving no doubt that the senate should convict. we believe we've proven our case. but last night congresswoman jimmy herrera beautler of washington state issued a state confirming that in the middle of the insurrection, when house minority leader kevin mccarthy called the president to beg for help, president trump responded, and i quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.

needless to say, this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence, further confirming the charges before you, as well as the president's willful dereliction of duty as commander in chief of the united states, his state of mind and his further incitement of the insurrection on january 6th. for that reason, and because this is the proper time to do so under the resolution that the senate adopted to set the rules for the trial, we would like the opportunity to subpoena congresswoman herrera regarding her communications with house minority leader kevin mccarthy and to subpoena her contemporaneous notes that she made regarding what president trump told kevin mccarthy in the middle of the insurrection. we would be prepared to proceed by zoom deposition of an hour or less, just as soon as congresswoman herrera beautler is available, and then to proceed to the next phase of the

trial, including the introduction of that testimony shortly thereafter. congresswoman beautler further stated that she hopes other witnesses to this part of the story, other patriots, as she put it, would come forward. and if that happens, we would seek the opportunity to take their depositions via zoom also for less than an hour, or to subpoena other relevant documents as well. >> thank you. senators, good morning. good morning to the american people. the first thing i want to say on the issue of witnesses is that the house manager just got up here and described the articles of impeachment and the charges. there is no plural here. that's wrong. there's one article of impeachment and there's one

charge, and that's incitement of violence and insurrection. what you all need to know and the american people need to know is as of late yesterday afternoon, there was a stipulation going around that there weren't going to be any witnesses. but, after what happened here in this chamber yesterday, the house managers realized they did not investigate this case before bringing the impeachment, they did not give the proper consideration and work, they didn't put the work in that was necessary to impeach the former president. but if they want to have witnesses, i'm going to need at least over 100 depositions, not just one. the real issue is incitement. they put into their case over

100 witnesses, people who have been charged with crimes by the federal government and each one of those, they said that mr. trump was a co-conspirator with. that's not true. but i have the right to defend that. the only thing that i ask, if you vote for witnesses, do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses that i can have. i need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do. i need to do the 911-style investigation that nancy pelosi called for. it should have been done already. it's a dereliction of the house managers' duty that they didn't.

and now, at the last minute, after a stipulation had apparently been worked out, they want to go back on that. i think that's inappropriate and improper. we should close this case out today. we have each prepared our closing arguments. i mean, i had eight days to get ready for this thing. but we each had those eight days equally, together, to prepare ourselves. and the house managers need to live with the case that they brought. but if they don't, please, in all fairness and in all due process, do not limit my ability to discover, discover, discover the truth. that would be another sham and

that's the president's position, my position. >> mr. raskin. >> thank you, mr. president. first of all, this is the proper time that we were assigned to talk about witnesses. this is completely within the course of the rules set forth by the senate. there's nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we've done an exceedingly thorough and comprehensive job with all the evidence that was available. last night this was breaking news and it responded directly to a question that was being raised by the president's defense counsel, saying that we had not sufficiently proven to their satisfaction, although i think we've proven to the satisfaction of the american people, certainly, that the president after the breach and invasion took place was not

working on the side of defending the capitol, but rather was continuing to pursue his political goals. and the information that came out last night by congresswoman beautler, apparently backed up by contemporaneous notes that she had taken, i think will put to rest any lingering doubts raised by the president's counsel, who now says he wants to interview hundreds of people. there's only one person the president's counsel really needs to interview and that's their own client. bring him forward, as we suggested last week, because a lot of this is matters that are in his head. why did he not act to defend the country after he learned of the attack? why was he continuing to press the political case? but this piece of evidence is relevant to that. >> if i may. >> and, finally, i was a little bit mystified by the point about the article of impeachment, which i referred to.

the dereliction of duty is built into the incitement charge, obviously. if the president of the united states is out inciting a violent insurrection, he's obviously not doing his job at the same time, just like if a police officer is mugging you, yeah, he's guilty of theft and armed robbery, whatever it might be, but he's also not doing his job as a police officer, so it's further evidence of his intent and what his conduct is. >> if i may. >> counsel. >> first of all, it's my understanding it's been reported that mr. mccarthy disclaims the rumors that have been the basis of this morning's antics, but really the rumors that have been the basis of this entire proceeding. this entire proceeding is based on rumor, report, innuendo. there's nothing to it and they

didn't do their work. just like what happened with mr. lee two or three lights ago, some supposed conversation that happened and they had to withdraw that. they had to back off of that because it was false. it was a false narrative. but it is one article of impeachment. yeah, they threw a lot of stuff in it in violation of rule 23. rule 23 says you cannot combine counts. it's a defect in their entire case. it's one of the four reasons why you can devote to acquit in this case. jurisdiction, rule 23, due process, and the first amendment. they all apply in this case. let me take my own advice and cool the temperature in the room a little bit.

it's about the incitement, it's not about what happened afterwards. that's actually the irrelevant stuff. that's the irrelevant stuff. it's not the things that were said from the election to january 6th. it's not relevant to the legal analysis of the issues that are before this body. it doesn't matter what happened after the insurgence into the capitol building because that doesn't have to do with incitement. incitement, it's a point in time, folks. it's a point in time when the words are spoken and the words s say, implicitly say, explicitly say commit acts of violence or

lawlessness. and we don't have that here. so for the house managers to say we need depositions about things that happened after, it's just not true. but if he does, there are a lot of depositions that need to happen. nancy pelosi's deposition needs to be taken. vice president harris' deposition absolutely needs to be taken. and not by zoom. none of these depositions should be done by zoom. we didn't do this hearing by zoom. these depositions should be done in person, in my office, in philadelphia. that's where we should be done. [ laughter ] >> i don't know how many civil lawyers are here, but that's the

way it works, folks. when you want somebody's deposition, you send a notice of deposition and they appear at the place where the notice says. that's civil process. i don't know why you're laughing. it is civil process. that's the way lawyers do it. we send notices of deposition. >> i would remind everybody that we will have order in the chamber during these proceedings. >> i haven't laughed at any of you and there's nothing laughable here. he mentioned my client coming in to testify. that is not the way it's done. if he wanted to talk to donald trump, he should have put a subpoena down like i'm going to slap subpoenas on a good number of people if witnesses are what is required here for them to try

to get their case back in order, which has failed miserably for four reasons. there's no jurisdiction here, there has been no due process here, they have completely violated and ignored and stepped on the constitution of the united states. they have trampled on it like people who have no respect for it. and if this is about nothing else, it has to be about the respect of our country, our constitution and all of the people that make it up. and so i ask when considering or voting on this witness matter, and to be clear, this may be the time to do it, but, again, everybody needs to know the back room politics, i'm not so much into it all and i'm not too

adept at it, either. but there was a stipulation. they felt pretty comfortable after day two, until their case was tested on day three. now is the time to end this. now is the time to hear the closing arguments. now is the time to vote your conscience. thank you. >> we were involved in no discussions about a stipulation and i have no further comment. thank you, mr. president .

>> i would remind -- i would remind everybody, as chief justice roberts noted on january 21st, 2020, citing the trial of 1905, all parties in this chamber must refrain from using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. i listened to chief juice roberts say that, i agreed with him, and i thought for our colleagues i would repeat it, as i did last night .

so the question we have before us is whether there should be an order to consider and debate under the rules of impeachment any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. the request for yeas and nays has been made. >> mrs. baldwin. >> aye. >> mr. barasso. >> nae. >> mr. bennett. >> mr. blackburn. >> mr. blumenthal. >> aye. >> mr. blunt. >> no. >> mr. booker. >> aye. >> mr. bozeman.

mr. brown. mr. burr. mrs. cantwell. mr. carden. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez mosto. >> mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. cruz. >> no. >> mr. danes. [ inaudible ] >> mrs. duck worth.

[ inaudible ] >> mr. burr din. [ inaudible ] >> mrs. einstein. [ inaudible ] >> mr. graham. [ inaudible ] >> mr. grassley. [ inaudible ] >> mr. haggerty. [ inaudible ] >> mrs. hassan. [ inaudible ] >> mr. hawley. [ inaudible ] >> mr. hickenlooper. [ inaudible ] >> mr. hoven. [ inaudible ] >> mrs. inhofe. [ inaudible ] >> mr. johnson. [ inaudible ] >> mr. cane. [ inaudible ] >> mr. kelly. >> aye. >> mr. kennedy.

>> no. >> mr. king. >> aye. >> ms. klobuchar. >> aye. >> mr. langford. >> no. >> mr. leahy. >> aye. >> mr. lee. >> no. >> mr. luhan. >> aye. >> mr. manchin. [ inaudible ] >> mr. markey. [ inaudible ] >> mr. marshall. >> no. >> mr. mcconnell. [ inaudible ] >> mr. merkley. >> aye. >> mr. moran. [ inaudible ] >> mrs. murkowski. >> aye. >> mr. murphy. >> aye. >> mrs. murray. >> aye. >> mr. osoff. >> aye. >> mr. padilla. >> aye. >> mr. paul. >> no. >> mr. peters. >> aye.

>> mr. portman. >> no. >> mr. reed. >> aye. >> mr. romney. >> aye. >> ms. rosen. >> aye. >> mr. rounds. >> no. >> mr. rubio. [ inaudible ] >> mr. sanders. [ inaudible ] >> mr. sass. >> aye. >> mr. consumer. >> aye. >> mr. scott of florida. >> no. >> mr. scott of south carolina. >> no. >> mr. shelby. [ inaudible ] >> ms. smith. >> aye. >> mr. sullivan. >> no. >> mr. tester. >> aye.

>> mr. thune. >> no. >> mr. tillis. >> no. >> mr. toomey. >> no. >> mr. tuberville. >> no. >> mr. van holland. >> aye. >> mr. warner. >> aye. >> mr. warnock. >> aye. >> mrs. warren. >> aye. >> mr. whitehouse. >> aye. >> mr. wicker. >> no. >> mr. widen. >> aye. >> mr. young. >> no.

senators voting in the affirmative, baldwin, bennett, blumenthal, booker, brown, cantwell, carden, carper, casey, coons, cortez masto, durbin, hic hickenlooper, king, klobuchar, manchin, markey, menendez, ma kowski, murray, ossof, peters, reed, romney, rosen, sanders, sass, schumer, shaheen, smith, tester, van holland, westerner, warnock, warren, whitehouse,

widen. senators voting in the negative. barosso, blackburn, blunt, bozeman, braun, burr, cassidy, cornyn, cotton, creper, cruz, danes, ernst, fisher, graham, grassley, hagerty, hawley, hoven, inhauf, kennedy, lee, marshall, mcconnell, moran, paul, portman, rounds, rubio, scott of florida, scott of south carolina, shelby, sullivan, thune, tillis, toomey, tuberville, wicker, young. >> mr. president? i would like to change my vote to aye.

>> mr. graham. mr. graham, aye. >> mr. president? >> mr. sullivan. >> just a point of inquiry, there's a little confusion here. was that a vote on one witness or many witnesses? >> debate is not allowed during the vote. >> it's not debate. >> i'll advise the senator of alaska. >> mr. president, it's a point of inquiry of what we just voted on. >> i would advise that is not allowed during the vote.

the point of order and debate are not allowed during the vote. that is established senate procedure.

on the question of whether there shall be an order to consider or debate under the rules of impeachment any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents, the motion is agreed to by vote of 55-45. majority leader. >> mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. >> call the roll. >> ms. baldwin. they're going through a procedural moment right now to call a quorum, but this is a historic moment, 55-45, five republicans going with all the

democrats, 50 democrats, in order to support witnesses and depositions and evidence to come forward. this is going to continue this process. we heard jamie raskin, the lead house impeachment manager, say they want to call one congresswoman who overheard -- who got a direct confirmation from the senate -- from the house minority leader, kevin mccarthy, that the president was not doing what he was supposed to do to try to stop this riot that was going on up on capitol hill. >> this is a direct result of the reporting by cnn last night, congresswoman beautler coming forward saying she has notes of conversations with the house republican leader kevin mccarthy about his phone conversation with president trump during the insurrection. why they're having a quorum call, it's simply a stalling tactic. it's so the leaders can figure out what to do because this is a surprise to them. the expectation coming into the day was there most likely would not be witnesses.

but the democratic house managers deciding to at least ask for this one witness. one unanswered question now is whether there will be more witnesses. once you open the door to one, will there be more. what they're doing as you saw majority leader chuck schumer conferring with his team, they're going to have to suspend the trial. we've agreed to have witnesses. so clearly the proceedings are not going to last very long today unless there's a reconsideration. right now they're comparing notes and they'll come forward with the plan. and the obvious option is they're going to have to suspend the trial and proceed with the deposition of the congresswoman. >> and they're going to give the house impeachment managers a chance to consider what is going on right now. you saw jamie raskin and the other house impeachment managers walking off the senate floor. the former president's lawyers, they've got to decide what they do. you heard michael van der veen, for all practical purposes, the lead defense counsel right now, saying they're going to want 100 witnesses and a lot of depositions and he's going to want those depositions in his philadelphia office.

that drew some laughter from the senators, but he said he was very, very serious. >> right. and, again, he's a personal injury lawyer who is saying in his cases that's what would happen. that's not what's happening here. this is a constitutional proceeding under the united states senate. any depositions would be conducted, obviously, at the capitol hill. physically where he is, if they take several days off, he can go back to philadelphia if he wants. he had a unique way of pronouncing philadelphia. i'm not even going to try. but he obviously wants this over. the trump legal team showed up today knowing, because mitch mcconnell said this morning, the republican leader, he was going to vote to acquit. they came in this morning knowing they had the votes. if this trial ended today, their client would be acquitted. we don't have any expectation that things will change dramatically, but if you have witnesses and prolong the trial you certainly open the door to testimony that could change republican votes. so the trump team wanted this to end today because the math was in their favor. now we go into the unpredictability of having at least one witness and we'll go

from there. >> we'll see if they approve witnesses that the defense lawyers, that the trump lawyers want to come forward as well, including the mayor of washington, muriel bowser, the speaker, nancy pelosi. you heard those names mentioned by michael van der veen. jamie, you're at least partially responsible for the fact that the house impeachment managers now want these witnesses, this one witness congresswoman herrera beautler to come forward and do a one-hour deposition on zoom that they want to do. you heard jamie raskin say that, and then get her contemporaneous notes at the same time. so this is going to continue, this trial, for some time now, because then they're going to have to decide if the defense attorneys for trump, if they can call witnesses as well. >> correct. so, yes, we reported the story and i'm glad that we did. but jamie herrera beautler and the other republican members of the house that i spoke to are very much responsible for this

change today. a couple of things to keep in mind, wolf. you can be sure that the house managers, that jamie raskin, they are now going to be reaching out to other people who might be willing to voluntarily testify. is there anyone in the trump inner circle who resigned who might want to speak? is there -- we know that vice president pence, we have reporting that he's not happy and his staff is not happy about the way he was treated, the fact that the president did not immediately come to his rescue. i'm not saying it will happen, but you can never tell. this has opened the door.

the other day we were talking about trial magic. and to john king's point, now that this has happened, even though i would say the numbers to convict, getting to 17 republicans, is still a heavy lift. we don't know what's going to come out of this testimony. we don't know who else might want to be a witness. and let's remember, at the same time that the impeachment trial continues, the justice department, the fbi, they are continuing their investigations, their criminal investigations. so there may be things that come out from the fbi's investigation. they may be knocking on people's doors to do interviews with them

that will become pertinent now that the senate trial is continuing a little longer, wolf. >> it's important, that final statement in the public statement she put out today, jamie herrera beautler, she said to the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening or even to the former vice president, if you have something to adhere, now would be the time. she clearly wants to go public and be a witness in this trial. stand by. jeff zeleny is up on capitol hill. you were watching all of this unfold. you were watching what's happening on the senate floor with the house impeachment managers, the former president's defense counsel. tell us what you saw. >> reporter: there clearly is confusion among senators, as you could hear there. senator dan sullivan, republican of alaska was asking what are we voting on, what is this vote specifically on. is it for one witness, the idea of calling all witnesses. so essentially there is confusion. but senator leahy said this is

not the time to ask questions, this is only the time to vote. so right now there are five republican senators joining all democrats in voting for the idea of calling witnesses. but there is essentially a break going on, a quorum call for senators basically to get their act together and try and figure out how to proceed. we cannot understate how that has thrown a wrench into all of this. there was a high expectation from republicans and democrats, and indeed the white house, that this impeachment proceeding was going to be over this afternoon. there would be a vote and senators would leave for the week. that has all changed dramatically now at the idea of calling witnesses. so we are going to have to watch as all this unfolds in real time. and you also heard senator lindsey graham, one of the president's closest allies changing his vote to add to his vote for witnesses. so we don't know what kind of a door this has opened in terms of how many witnesses. we heard jamie raskin, the house impeachment manager, saying that he would do a zoom deposition, but that, of course, would have

to be agreed upon, both sides would agree. so we do not know where this is going from here. we're going to have to watch it. but the senate floor right now, there is a bit of confusion over what the next steps are going to be. so this is going to be a bit of a schoolhouse rock moment, a cspan moment, if you will. this has changed dramatically the timing of this, not necessarily the outcome, but certainly the expectation that senators were on the cusp of acquitting president trump. >> so i just want to be precise, jeff. were they voting for all witnesses to be allowed to appear and testify before this trial or simply that one witness that the house impeachment manager, jamie raskin, was calling for, the congresswoman? >> reporter: wolf, that is a good question. it appeared to me that they were voting for that one witness. but that is a bit of the confusion that is going on on the senate floor. so we are trying to get clarification on that as well.

we do know that senators have to vote, a majority vote for witnesses, for individual witnesses, not just the overall concept of witnesses. so it appears to us that it was for that one witness. the congresswoman. but, again, there is some confusion on the senate floor, which means there's confusion for those of us watching on the senate floor. even some senators were not sure what we were voting on. so it's a bit murky. certainly it was not expected by virtually anyone. there was a sense, as manu raju was reporting all morning, democrats were split on the idea of calling witnesses. but he was hearing a few hours ago before the proceedings began that there was an idea here of calling witnesses. so definitely that is going to happen. so, again, this has delayed the proceedings. so we will have to see where it goes from here. >> they'll continue the quorum call as they try to get their act together.

i just want to point out to our viewers right now, the five republicans who joined all 50 democrats in saying there should be witnesses, ben sass, susan collins, lisa murkowski and mitt romney, and then lindsey graham changed his vote from no to yes. lindsey graham saying yes, there should be witnesses. and i suspect, dana, and you've covered the congress for a long time, when he changed his vote he was -- i assume he was under the belief that all the witnesses, the witnesses that the house impeachment managers want, the witnesses that the former president's defense counsel want, they will be available to testify. but we don't know that. we haven't heard from him directly. >> we haven't and i'm sure we will soon, wolf. and that's an interesting point and it speaks to the rather chaotic nature of what we just saw on the senate floor. these senators, you know, it's not as if it is regular business. this is a trial. and even though it seems as though it happens a lot because it's happened three times in our

lifetime, it doesn't happen a lot and there are specific rules that govern it and it's not kind of rote how they deal with these issues that come up, which is why they're in what's known as a quorum call right now. just to translate that into english, it's basically a pause button so they can figure out what the heck is going on, and not only what they're going to do next, but unfortunately what they actually voted on. it doesn't really make sense, which it seems to me in reading what happened is why lindsey graham changed his vote to try to either -- to try to make the point that they want to bring witnesses as well. >> exactly. and i think that either way you look at it, whether this was just a vote for the democratic witnesses or a vote for both, lindsey graham is in a very unique position as someone who is sort of acting as a proxy for former president trump within the chamber of making the case that trump would want to also call their own witnesses. the problem, though, is that, as

you can see from the former president's attorneys who seem to be incredibly ill-prepared for this moment, they don't really know who they want to call. he threw out vice president harris, he threw out nancy pelosi, almost in a joking fashion saying he wants to do it in his office in philadelphia, prompting laughter. but it underlies that the strategy outside the kind of poking at democrats is not clear for them. who would they really call who would help them? because if you do call nancy pelosi, maybe you might score a point or two, but nancy pelosi is going to prosecute the democrats' case when she's sitting in that chair in a deposition. >> hold that thought. i want to bring in manu raju, who is working the hallways up on capitol hill who has some information about what's next. these senators went home at the end of the trial yesterday thinking that today would be wrap-up and a preordained vote to likely acquit former

president trump, and because of jamie's reporting, that is not happening now. what are you hearing about how they're trying to sort out, frankly, what is the chaos on the senate floor? >> reporter: it is chaotic because they did expect this to be done by 3:00 this afternoon and i have been told that last night they engaged in a debate about whether to bring forward witnesses. the house democrats didn't even tell senate democrats, including the democratic leader, chuck schumer, as early as 9:00 a.m. when they had a conference call about what is next. but they are making the surprise move now. now the question is what is next. how does this actually take place. now that the senate has voted on a majority basis to bring forward witnesses if the senators want to, then they're going to have to move forward with specific votes on subpoenaing specific witnesses. so according to the rules set out for the trial, essentially it would go like this. if the democrats want to bring forward jamie herrera beautler, as they're indicating that they do want to, the congresswoman from washington, they will put

forward a motion to subpoena jamie herrera beautler and there would need to be 51 votes in the senate to move forward with a subpoena for her. now, if that were to move forward and get approved, which it appears very likely that they will have the votes to do that, that could slow down this process dramatically, because at that point they're going to have to probably recess this trial, find out a time to depose her and then have a deposition, and then once the deposition is in, then they'll have to figure out a new set of ground rules that the senate would have to use to take the evidence derived from that testimony and submit it into the record. so there is a complicated process that would take place that would slow things down to bring individual witnesses in, which is one reason why a lot of democrats did not want to have witnesses, because it will bog down the senate even longer, definitely for several days, and could derail efforts to confirm joe biden's nominees, deal with

the covid relief package and such. and the question is, will there be any additional witnesses that they may seek. that is still a question as well. we heard from the trump team that they want to bring forward a number of -- try to get a number of witnesses, but they also need a simple majority vote to get people like nancy pelosi, they say they want to have come testify, muriel bowser, that would need 51 votes in the senate. would democrats vote for that? i doubt that. we're expecting the subpoena to go forward for jamie herrera beautler sometime today and then at that point they'll have to figure out when to actually depose her, get her testimony and submit that to the senate, dana. >> so it sounds like what i'm hearing you say, and i don't want to put you on the spot, but it sounds like what i'm hearing you say is that the vote they just took where five republicans crossed party lines was just on the overarching question of whether there will be witnesses, and then going forward there will be individual votes on each

witness. is that correct? >> reporter: that's our understanding based on the trial rules that were adapopted by th senate. they were going to have to agree on specific witnesses one after another going forward. so jamie herrera beautler will be one. if they decide they want to bring someone else, they'll have another motion to the senate and get the senators to approve that on a simple majority basis. so each vote, we'll have to see if the same five republican senators who broke ranks, will they vote with the democrats again to subpoena jamie herrera beautler. that seems likely for four of them. a 50/50 vote dies in the senate. they will need at least 51 senators to go forward. right now we expect at least one. so a lot of uncertainty about how the final days of this trial will play out. >> before i let you go, i just want to touch on one of the things that you said at the beginning of your report, which i think is really critical, which is you were hearing -- i know i was hearing from

democratic senators about the fact that, yes, there was a debate within their caucus, but that for the most part they sort of said i don't think -- they don't think that they really needed the witnesses, but that they would defer to the house managers. that is what they did. so this was a house manager, meaning the prosecution decided to do this, kind of on their own. is that fair? >> reporter: yeah, absolutely that's fair. they did not tell the senators one way or the other. there was a conference call this morning, 9:00 a.m., the senate democrats came out saying they don't know. they said ta chuck schumer told him he does not know if they're going to ask for witnesses. but they had indicated they didn't think they would need witnesses, the case has been made, let's move forward. that was the overarching view among senate democrats. they said we'll see what the house democrats want. they just dropped this in the senate, really surprised senators and ultimately sided

with the party on the democratic side, throwing this into flux. >> imagine that, something unsk uns unscripted in the united states senate. back here to abby and david, it's fascinating because everybody thought they were going through the motions. that's not to say that at the end of the trial things will be quite different, but it certainly opens a possibility to that. >> yeah. i mean, it opens -- well, first of all, i think the one thing that this seems to assure is this is going to go on for some time. whether time is in the best interest of democrats or republicans, it's not entirely clear to me, frankly. i'm not sure that republicans are going to get more amenable to this. but, you know, it creates the possibility that some people, like, for example -- i think tom tuberville's behavior over the last 48 hours has been interesting. i don't necessarily think he's on the fence, but it's been interesting to see how he's been

willing to say pretty point blank trump knew that pence was in danger and called me anyway about elongating the electoral count. so there are some people there who i think are expressing concern about trump's behavior during the riot who may have some questions that want to be answered and may be answered by this elongation of the process. >> i would venture to say i don't think time is a friend to republicans or democrats in this scenario politically. but, dana, we're in a whole new ballgame now. i don't mean for the outcome of the trial. i mean the process we're going to see. remember, a year ago in the trump impeachment number one, there were no witnesses. so now you are talking about how they don't know procedure and there's no muscle memory of how to deal with witnesses. you have to go back to the clinton impeachment in '99. i've been trying to quickly brush up on history, where there were three witnesses, but how did it get conducted. they were videotaped

depositions, two senators, one republican and one democrat, served as sort of the presiding officers over the deposition. defense and house managers were allowed to be in the room to ask questions, obviously, and have staff. guess who was one of the democratic senators presiding over the deposition of one of the witnesses? patrick leahy. the only one still in the senate. >> he has muscle memory. >> he has been a little bit of muscle memory of how this has worked, at least in the '99 clinton impeachment trial. but there were a whole set of votes that the leaders had to work out on the senate floor of how this will actually work. so we're just in an entirely new unpredicted and unexpected phase of this trial. and as you noted with lindsey graham's vote, the idea that they're not going to battle the republicans to have more trump defense-friendly witnesses, that seems nuts to me. i would imagine they're going to make a really hard case, if the house managers get to call witnesses, they're going to make sure that donald trump's defense can. >> lindsey graham, back to the

future, a house manager prosecuting the case against bill clinton during that impeachment trial, my memory, and david tell me if i'm wrong because you're refreshing your memory, but that was one of the first things i really covered on capitol hill, that trial. and my memory is that, much like this trial, they went in not knowing if there would be witnesses and it was decided in the middle of the trial. so they adjourned, they took about a week or so and conducted the depositions that you just described, david, and then they went back. so that's not to say that the senate can't do other business while they're making that happen. although it takes all 100 senators to agree to that, so if republicans want to say, okay, you want to have your trial, we're going to do this and nothing else, we're not going to confirm the rest of your cabinet, your nominees, president biden, we're not going to do real work on the covid relief bill, they could play hardball if they want to. >> i think we should expect

that's what's going to happen. they signaled before the start of the trial that several republican senators made it very clear they did not want to do other business until this was dealt with. that's a completely -- for those watching at home, that's a completely political decision. it is entirely possible, if the senate is not dealing with impeachment business, to deal with other things. i do think right now the onus is, and the spotlight is on the trump team. where do they go from here? i do not think that they have given real legal thought to who they want to call and why. you don't just call witnesses to, you know, create a spot for tucker carlson in prime time. you call witnesses that won't hurt your case, that will advance your side of the story, and i am not sure that they've really thought that through. >> clearly. he was laughed at by the jury of senators. he actually -- the trump lawyer was mocked. >> for saying that he wanted to do it in philly.

>> for throwing stuff up against the wall of how he's going to conduct witnesses and depositions. i think it shows he hasn't given a single thought to actually how they want to improve their case. >> it's a real problem. let's put it this way. if there is ex cull pa toer evidence, there are a lot of people in trump's orbit who knew what he was up to that. they could bring those people forward. >> i'm guessing the answer to that is no, because it's unclear that they really have that evidence and the other question, wolf, is about witnesses. i heard our colleague, laura coates say yesterday, they cut both ways. once you get a witness on the stand, it's open season. >> it certainly is. and this has thrown a real monkey wrench into what was supposed to be a day, day five

of this trial, where they were wrapping things up by doing their closing arguments, no witnesses, moving on. then all of a sudden this has happened. they were supposed to have a final vote on acquittal or conviction by around 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. that's clearly now not going to happen. they're now, for all practical purposes in a sort of recess, although they're calling it a parlia parlia parliamentary quorum call. jeff zeleny is watching this closely. he's up on capitol hill. so the working assumption is, yes, they've approved witnesses, but then they're going to have to vote separately on who the witnesses should be. >> reporter: exactly and that was some of the confusion on the floor among some senators who were voting on this. but it is clear that they have voted for the idea. they've opened the door, if you will, to the idea of witnesses. now they must have a simple majority vote on every witness. so there will be another vote, if this proceeds as we're going forward.

and we should say there is no playbook for this. there is no rule of order here. we're going to have to watch this unfold. if they do go ahead with witnesses, if the house impeachment managers want to depose the congresswoman, jamie herrera beautler, there will be another simple majority vote for that. and on and on. so for every witness who would be suggested or called by either side, there would be a vote of the senate. so this is something that we're in uncharted waters here. senator richard shelby, one of the most senior senators, a republican from alabama who is retiring, he's seen three impeachments. he said this is the most insane and craziest one he's seen. but as david chalian was saying, senator patrick leahy, he of course has seen all of this. so he was here during the clinton impeachment trial. the majority of the senators were not. most of them do not exactly have a playbook in front of them for how it will unfold. i talked to one senate chief of staff who said all bets are off.

changing plans for the weekend, senators are not flying out of town. they are going to be here, most likely. so we will just have to see how this unfolds. for right now they're in a quorum call, which is essentially legalese, they're trying to figure out what is next. there will be another vote on specific witnesses if that's how they decide to proceed, wolf. >> jeff, once there's a vote, let's say the first witness that the house impeachment managers want, this congresswoman jamie herrera beautler, that they want her to testify, and he said she could do it via zoom, presumably to get this done relatively quickly. they want her contemporaneous notes that she took in her conversation with kevin mccarthy, the minority leader in the house of representatives. they could do that relatively quickly. i assume you agree? >> reporter: they could do it

relatively quickly. they certainly could not do it this afternoon and there would be some due process involved. the former president's lawyers would also have the ability to ask questions and depose her as well and perhaps get up to speed on her testimony. so we're not sure how relatively quickly that would be. now, we do not expect a ton of witnesses. again, this is a key point to remember, as the former president's lawyer was saying, i will call 100 witnesses. the senate has to vote on witnesses. democrats are still in control of the chamber here. you see republicans also, a handful of them voting with democrats on these witnesses. so the idea that there are going to be a lot of people deposed, like the vice president and others, is probably not going to happen because they must vote on each of these witnesses. but relatively soon does not necessarily mean in the next few hours. so we will have to see how this unfolds. what it has shined a light on is the mindset, as jamie gangel has

been reporting, the mindset of president donald trump the afternoon of january 6th. and house impeachment managers talked about that a good deal, but they also decided to build their case entirely on his speech at the rally and everything he's been saying over the last four years in office, rather than focusing specifically on the hours of the afternoon of january 6th. so there are many questions that exist. so we'll see how far they want to go into this to investigate. i can also tell you the biden white house has been trying to keep essentially a distance from this. we've seen the president weigh in from time to time, but they were hoping this would wrap up very quickly. they were hoping that they could move on to the covid relief bill, getting some of their cabinet nominees confirmed. they're very much watching this in awe and wonder as well. talking to a couple of white house officials saying it was their hope to move beyond it today, but they have not weighed in and said don't call witnesses. they're trying not to put their fingers on the scale. should they have done more to move this quickly?

so they, like everyone, are watching this. president biden is spending the weekend at camp david, but i would also bet he has one eye on the senate floor as well. >> what the senate does is going to have major ramifications on his ryepriorities over the next several days, maybe weeks, depending on how long this goes on. jim acosta is watching all of this. he's down in west palm beach, not far from mar-a-lago. you're getting information on this whole notion of witnesses. what a surprise development this morning that the house impeachment managers say they want at least one witness, this congresswoman, and the senate just voted 55-45 that there could be witnesses. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. and i'm hearing from a source familiar with the work of the house managers that they would also like to speak with the former vice president's chief of staff, mark short. short was with pence on january 6th for the official counting of the electoral votes up on capitol hill and had to be

rushed to safety by u.s. secret service when those rioters were approaching. i'm told by the source that short has been contacted to provide information to the house impeachment managers, but he has not yet responded at this point. i've also tried to reach out to mark short. i have not heard back from him. obviously, mark short's testimony, if it's provided, or whatever information he has would be critical at this point because we're trying to establish a timeline of events here. keep in mind, yesterday one of the president's attorneys, michael van der veen, stipulated during his closing statements yesterday and during the question and answer session that at no point did president trump know that mike pence was in danger. we know that is not true because according to senator tuberville, tuberville said he was on the phone with president trump and told him at that time that the vice president had just been evacuated. so if you believe the words of this freshman senator, the president, the then president was informed at that time that

mike pence was in danger, making what michael van der veen said to be false. i also talked to a source close to the vice president last night who said that van der veen was lying when he said that. that they know full well mike pence was in danger and donald trump knew that mike pence was in danger. this all goes back to the drama that unfolded that day and particularly the drama that existed between president trump and his very loyal vice president, when according to aides of the former vice president, donald trump was not checking in on pence throughout the day, not checking on his safety. that deeply offended people around the vice president. they thought for somebody as loyal as mike pence that trump would have been doing more at the time to make sure that mike pence and his family were out of danger. now, we're trying to find out whether or not marc short would provide that testimony, but, wolf, that obviously would be critical information. that is somebody who was in the room, was evacuated at that time, and would know whether or not there were contacts between the white house, between the president and the vice president that day. i will also tell you, wolf,

we've been hearing from sources that people inside the white house say that folks like the former white house chief of staff, mark meadows, was in touch with marc short and others around the vice president that day. that has not been, i guess, brut out or stipulated in any kind of information gathering process, and so all of this information is going to be highly important. i'm talking to my sources up on capitol hill and it sounds as though, in addition to marc short, they would like to talk to other people close to the situation to find out exactly what trump knew and when he knew it, wolf. >> yeah, this is a major surprise development unfolding right now. the outcome, we have no idea if it's going to be within a few days, could be a few weeks now that the senate has voted 55-45, that there can in fact be witnesses at this second trump impeachment trial. we're going to get back to you, jim acosta. katilan collins is covering all of this. you're getting more significant information. what are you hearing? >> reporter: wolf, the trump team is just as caught off guard

by this as pretty much anyone right now in washington is. they were not expecting witnesses to be called. they thought this was going to be wrapped up today. that's why they were so brief in part in the arguments they were making yesterday, because they wanted this to end as quickly as possible. so my colleague notes that some of them had booked travel home out of washington. they did not see this coming. so now the president's attorneys, the former president's attorneys have left the senate floor, they're huddling in this office down the hall that they've been working out of discussing what they are going to do next. you saw michael van der veen say that if witnesses were called that they are going to call 100 of them to come. of course, the senate is going to have to vote on that, so that's not likely to happen. that doesn't mean that it will stop them from trying, that they will try to put the list out there of multiple people. they've mentioned people like the dc mayor, the house speaker, nancy pelosi, you even saw him mention the vice president there while he was talking about this. of course not the former vice

president, the current vice president. they were saying they would call her in to potentially give a deposition. so it's completely unclear right now, obviously, confusion is reigning supreme in washington over where this is going to go. the former president's team is caught off guard, they wanted this to end early. it's not completely clear that they had witnesses in mind beyond the ones they had floated earlier on this week because they never thought this was going to materialize and we were going to get to this point, wolf. >> you're making an extremely important point. stand by. we're going to get back to you. john king is with me. i was thinking when we heard david chalian, recall the by clinton impeachment trial in 1998, you and i were cnn white house correspondents at the time. we covered that impeachment trial. there were witnesses, three witnesses at that impeachment trial, as you and i well remember. we covered the last impeachment trial a year ago, the trump impeachment trial.

no witnesses there. there will be witnesses presumably this time. the senate just voted 55-45 in favor of witnesses. this could drag on. >> it could drag on. the question is how long and that's why we have this quorum call because everyone is in a stare down. part of it is negotiation and part of it is the trump lawyers threatened 100 witnesses. the senate is not going to support 100 witnesses. now they're in this where do we go from here. you mentioned if clinton trial. they did stop the trial for depositions, no live witnesses. including monica lewinsky, who frankly just schooled. the house managers came in thinking they were going to get more information and they got nothing to the point where the clinton lawyers didn't ask her any questions because they realized the house managers got nothing out of that and it was not going to change the dynamics. sometimes you want a witness and you don't get what you want from that witness. this case is fascinating in the domino effect that it creates. congresswoman jamie herrera beautler, she voted in the house, a republican from washington state, voted to

impeach the president. now going public saying she talked to her leader, kevin mccarthy about this phone call where he was asking the president of the united states, donald trump, for help and the president was essentially mocking him saying those people are apparently more upset about the election than you were. so if the house managers, the democratic prosecutors, get her as a witness, president trump's lawyer, former president trump's lawyer said that mccarthy had disclaimed this conversation. he has not. that's one of many lies trump's lawyers have told on the floor of the united states senate. if the congresswoman comes forward, what does kevin mccarthy do? does he dispute her, does he challenge her, whether in a public setting or offer himself up as a trial witness here? so this is a play by the house managers to essentially try to expose what they believe here is this unholy republican alliance with trump, even among leaders like mccarthy who have damaging information about the president's conduct that day. we will see where it goes.

the stakes now, this has been thrown open. we are now in the land of unpredictable. you have republican senators delaying, senator rub io. if your plan was a republican to acquit the president of the united states, now we're in the great unknown. again, you're right about the clinton experience, the republican house managers at the time did not get what they wanted from those witnesses. but that was then, this is now. this throws this open. because this is a republican congresswoman who voted to impeach the president, who says she hopes other patriots come forward, if they now comes into the trial record and says, i have my contemporaneous notes, then president trump essentially told my leader go away, i'm not going to do anything, i'm not going to do anything, that puts the president's state of mind on the record and will any republicans who have that similar knowledge step forward to challenge that or does that

become a powerful piece of this record, and then the question is does it change any votes of republican senators, which we can't answer. we are now in this wide open, unpredictable, no knows. >> let's not forget senator beautler voted in favor of going forward with the impeachment process, one of ten republican members in the house of representatives to do so. and i think the contemporaneous notes she took would be so significant. they want to show the american people what she wrote down as she was having that conversation. >> and, again, that then puts the onus on leader mccarthy. is that a fair account of what you told her on that day, the insurrection day? we talked about this before, even despite that call, leader mccarthy and 130 plus house republicans still voted to keep challenging the election and voted to support the president's

big lie. but if you now get a republican congresswoman on the record in this impeachment trial, it does raise the question, as you just were talking with our other correspondents, does the vice president's chief of staff raise his hand and challenge any of these conversations, does leader mccarthy want to raise his hand and accept or challenge these conversations. so we thought when we came in the studio this morning around 3:00 today we would have judgment, the vote. we're not going to get that now. the trial will be extended. the senate, by the way, was supposed to not be in session next week. so for those saying this throws the biden agenda off the rails, it could well, if they could wrap this up within the next week it's more of a speed bump than a roadblock. this is what we're negotiating righ right now. >> it's a pretty chaotic situation right now and there's a whole lot of options out there. we don't know the answers. >> and it's remarkable what we're seeing on the floor. you see us on the screen and you

see the floor there. what is happening here in it's a remarkable moment. no one expects it. you have senators in the middle of the vote trying to say what did we just vote on, with the confusion. i mean, it is a stunning thing. >> so here's the thing. the trial rules that they're operating under were adopted the day before trial, and so not a lot of people have even read them. so they're doing a lot of this on the fly. and even the rules that have been adopted don't cover necessarily what happens next. so now it seems clear there are going to be witnesses and the question that they're asking is who are going to be the witnesses, what is going to be the process. yes, there will be depositions, but what do those look like. >> so they have to set all these rules, this was not put in there? >> exactly right. in clinton there was a negotiation between the minority and the majority and clinton's lawyers to agree, and the managers to agree on what was going to happen. there's not that right now.

and so they're trying to figure all of this out on the fly. >> they're trying to literally -- and they're huddled, we see little groups. all, by the way, any impartiality, let's throw that out the window. we heard trump's attorney say, oh, okay, we want 100 people and they'll come to my office in philadelphia. so right now this is come up with specific names because they need to decide how they're going to vote, by name? >> yeah, what i would call that from trump's lawyer is a bluff. there's no way they're going to call 100 witnesses. they're saying if you want to go down this road we're going to blow this up and turn it crazy. trials are inherently dynamic, unpredictable situations. the question i have is where is kevin mccarthy? he's not going to be able to hide. once they go down this path, beautler is going to say this is

what he told me. we should hear from mccarthy. >> the senate is not as dynamic as a trial and now you have a situation where you have senators who are stuck. they thought this was going to be over today. they have this situation. and i would argue let's go back to what mr. van der veen was saying, at no point, at no point did donald trump know what was happening to mike pence. then you have jamie gangel's great reporting from last night which says, wait a minute, congresswoman herrera beautler says, yes, he knew because he was on the phone with kevin mccarthy about what was going on. we know he was on the phone with tommy tuberville. we have parts of the timeline. and suddenly this explodes because she is willing to go on the record, you're right, what about kevin mccarthy. what they have to figure out now is sort of how they're going to get to yes together, how many witnesses will they allow, his

threats are not going to be meaningful at all. you don't threaten the united states senate. that is not the way it works. this now is sort of a constitutional mystery we're witnessing. how are they going to figure out the real story here that gets you to the president's state of mind and his intent. >> vand de der veen ruined this. there was a level of arrogance when he said this entire impeachment was based on innuendo, based on reporting, there is nothing here that is substantive and he thought he was going to say that and sit back down and say my work here is done. what he didn't realize is he opened pandora's box and walked right into the hands -- i don't know if it was an inadvertent trap, but his foot is now in it because now he has to have a circumstance where those factual disputes have to be played out. are you going to have mccarthy saying that another member of

his congress under his leadership is a liar, that i didn't say that to you, you're lying? think about the division that's now going to come into play here. all of this is because somebody dared to want illumination on an issue about impeachment. and one of the things that struck me was this idea of van der veen saying don't handcuff me. if you're going to call one, i've got to call a whole lot. it cuts both ways. now if you want to call more people, the house wants to call more people and they're not the ones who have raised the factual disputes and said it was all on unyu innuendo. this was almost like a lack of foresight. this is what happens when you're trying to fly a plane when you're building the plane. >> and now you have on the senate floor, you have republican senators talking to the president's legal team. >> as you speak, we're watching this happen. >> you have democrats doing the

same with the house managers. people are looking at this saying, wait, this isn't the way a trial is supposed to work. but it isn't a trial. >> and it's also not generally the way the senate works. usually things are a lot more choreographed than all of that. and so i think what we can expect is that some number of witnesses are going to be called and that they're going to be deposed first. in the clinton case, and it's likely that they're going to follow this procedure, it's not like those witnesses are paraded onto the senate floor. they were deposed, they were deposed in private, two senators presided over those depositions. it was after that, then the question is what do you do with those depositions. there could be a motion then to have those people testify before the senate, or to allow the lawyers to just play the tapes of those depositions, play excerpts. >> can i ask you one other

crucial procedural thing. and i know your whole point is we don't know the procedure. but the way that congressman raskin put forth was i want to hear from congressman herrera beautler and we know she obviously wants to testify. and he said anything else that would lead us to. so to the point you're making, we go where we go. but what they want to do right now is vote by name now. so does this kind of close some of those doors? >> they've got to figure that out. it wasn't clear what representative raskin was ultimately proposing. one way to handle it is say, all right, we're going to authorize x number of depositions of x witnesses and then if you want more, you can come back and ask for more. >> it's sort of fill in the blank, you get ten or whatever? >> no, they're going to authorize specific people. you saw what the president's lawyer was doing there. they're not going to allow that

to happen. they're not going to let him have a blank subpoena and serve the vice president. they're going to agree and decide on who is actually going to be deposed as a witness. and i think they would like to get that all settled now so they don't have to come back and do this again for more witnesses. >> so this is what you think they're doing right now as we watch. >> they're trying. the problem is, you know, as representative raskin noted, they don't know where this all might lead. so it's an issue. >> the other problem here, too, is we have to just underscore this point. how absurd it is that there were senators who voted and had no idea what they were voting for. actually had to say, i'm sorry, i need clarification. i've already cast my vote. >> point of order, what did we just vote on. >> these are the senators of the united states government and this tells you just how much this was a preconceived -- this was a self-fulfilling prophecy,

all of these things before hand, they thought i've got to just raise my hand. other republicans raised their hands, i'll do the same thing, without actually realizes what they were procedurally voting for. and the idea that this is going on, we all know -- can you imagine in a trial, where you in the middle of it, you've already done the proceeding issues and now you're going to decide the procedure of an impeachment trial. >> it's already been decided. >> we've been talking for weeks now about this potential problem happening. >> as we're talking, you're seeing what's happening on the floor. they're trying to figure out who they're going to call because they have to put these specific names and try to make some sort of a deal. we've been talking about clumps of senators meeting with impeachment managers. jeff zeleny, tell us what you can about what's happening in that room. what detail can you give us? >> reporter: the only bit of bipartisan that we've really seen are the conversations that many senators are now having on the senate floor.

right when this was breaking out there were some very heated moments. mitt romney, the senator from utah, who of course voted to allow witnesses, he was the ire of senator ron johnson from wisconsin. there was a bit of a shouting match that ensued and senator johnson said, this should have been over by now, this should have been over by now. there there are some emotions. but we're seeing joe manchin, the democratic senator from west virginia, he was talking to republican snenators and the house impeachment managers. one thing that's clear, i'm told the house impeachment managers right now are working on the next steps forward and working to see whether other witnesses will come. so we are trying to bring a resolution to all of this. but senators right now are realizing that this is going to go on for some time. senator elizabeth warren was asked about that directly and she said i want to see us get on to other business, but it's absolutely critical that we hold

the president of the united states accountable. it's not a question of how long, but it's a question of making this clear to the american people what happened here. so there clearly is a sense that senators also believe that they can do more than one thing at once. we're going back to the argument of being able to do committee business in the morning, trial in the afternoon. the senate was going to be in recess next week. that is also very much up in the air. we believe this quorum call happening right now will come to an end at some point once they reach a resolution on witnesses. we don't know exactly how long that's going to be. there's a suspended animation that's happening that is very real. these senators were not expecting witnesses to be called. bob casey, the democratic senator from pennsylvania, he said he was not expecting any of this, so they were not alerted by house impeachment managers. that's how close to the vest this was being held here. so we'll watch as this unfolds. the senators at least now are in

bipartisan groups having conversations. but this is not their show. the house impeachment managers now have to decide how many witnesses to call and the president's team is certainly confused by all of this. one of their top lawyers is not here today, of course, because he's observing the sabbath. so that is also adding a wrench into this as well. >> jeff, look, it's fascinating. let me just ask you, because once you -- and i know they specifically said, congressman raskin, that he wanted congresswoman beautler and wherever else that may go. but if you're going to do this for history, and i know there are some who hope that this will change the tide of how republicans vote. i'm going to put that aside for a moment. if you're doing it for history, you either do it the way you were going to do it or you go all the way. you don't just do one witness and say, okay, right? don't you then have to -- >> i completely agree with that. let's take a moment and appreciate what's happened. the senate has decided we're going to get all the facts. that shouldn't be novel at an

impeachment hearing, but it very nearly was not the case and it was not the case last year. if we're making a historical record, people are going to be studying this 100 years from now and if it takes another week or two, so be it. i would want to hear from beautler, mccarthy, mark meadows, who i believe was by his side and has made public statements about what he believes donald trump was doing during these moments. let's hear from all of them. let's get it out and let the senate decide. >> lindsey graham has said we want to hear from the fbi. the fbi was saying this was preplanned, that donald trump had nothing to do with it. so lindsey graham is over talking to the president's lawyers right now. maybe he is making that suggestion. my question is, how do you decide this issue so quickly? are they going to come up right now and say, well, we've decided on these six guys and these six

women? i don't know how they do that. >> and it points at two issues. one that we heard from the president's lawyers about kind of doing this snap impeachment. doing an impeachment so quickly where there are so many unanswered questions and now you're in a trial. that's one. and then, two, it does sort of weave back into the jurisdictional question of, yes, maybe if you can do a super quick impeachment and a super quick trial and have it not be disruptive, okay. but then you want to include former officers. but you can't predict that as we're seeing now. we've been talking about it. if you're going to do an impeachment trial, you've got to be prepared to do an impeachment trial and things get unpredictable, things get time-consuming and it is very disruptive and it's probably why this has never happened before, with the exception of this belnap case in the 1800s.

>> the trump defense team, though, they've locked themselves in. you can actually make a song to the number of times they said the words "due process". be careful what you wish for. you will get precisely that. so they were complaining that they did not have enough of a development of the investigation, that that was really one of the things that the senate could hang their hats on. they could not only do the idea of jurisdiction constitutionality, but the idea of is this how you want an impeachment to go. no witnesses, no due process, not having a full opportunity to see everything. now the resolution rules, as we're seeing them and we've seen before, they provide for discovery, they provide for depositions, they provide for all of these things. so the arguments, is olive branchs, the exit hatches that were provided for the course of two days or a day and a half of the defense team, they've sealed them off on their own. it's astounding to think about how this was not foreseeable to the defense team to suggest that

you needed more evidence, more witnesses, you needed something there, and then when they actually said we'll give it to you, they go, wait a second, i hadn't planned for this. >> they agreed to these rules. >> they did. >> they agreed to the rules up front. >> one further question i want to understand, there's a lot of people you would want to call. they said initially we want to call president trump. but some of the people on that list are not going to want to testify. so what do you do when that's the reality? marc short who worked for the vice president, the vice president's office has said that van der veen lied when he said that trump didn't know about pence being in trouble. we haven't heard anyone from pence's office being willing to testify. so the subpoena process then. >> it's one thing if you think it's very likely somebody is going to show up. it's pretty likely this congresswoman is going to show up if she gets a subpoena. now if you start talking about issuing subpoenas that people are going to fight, the way you fight a subpoena is either you

file a motion in court or you just tell the house managers and the senate you're not showing up and then you force them to try to enforce it, likely by going to court. that is not a two-hour process, that is a process that could take a long time when you're talking about government officials who can interpose privilege issues, for example. to that end, people need to be ready to move quick. the house managers and the courts. if it comes to a court dispute. the don mcgahn subpoena is still being litigated. so everyone needs to move quick. >> i don't think you can. >> let's get back to you, dana. it is amazing the remarkable moment that we're in and all of the questions that are now out there. >> and as you all were talking, we were talking here about the fact that it's been the republican women who have had

the most, it's saturday morning so i'll say guts in this entire process. liz cheney, of course, stood up and not only voted for impeachment, but has been very clear in not backing down from it. as i go in the room to abby and david, now we have jamie herrera beautler, who was one of the very few republican women in the house, and now there are more members. but she's kind of almost a veteran, even though she's quite young. and i want to read part of the statement that she put out last night after jamie's reporting. at the end of the statement she says, to the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former president, if you have something to adhere, now would be the time. so the point being that she is saying she's willing to say it, she's said on the record what she understands to be true about the president's actions, words or inaction, i should say, on

january 6th, the words that he used with her republican leader, kevin mccarthy. but there are others who can speak to it. so she wants those people to speak out. >> remember that after this happened, after january 6th, there were a slew of resignations in the white house, in the administration, even in congress. some lawmakers losing their staff over their votes to throw out the electoral college votes. so there are people who felt compelled to leave their jobs at that time who might have actually had knowledge of or been present for some key pieces of information in this saga. now, many of these people are not powerful, they're not wealthy, they don't have the means to carry on if they're attacked physically or verbally by the president and his allies. but she's putting out a call to say basically, you know, if

enough of us stand up and say something, we can do this altogether. and usually if things like this are going to happen, it's usually that people want to go but not alone. >> i want to get to the hill. manu raju has new reporting. i know you're speaking to republican senators. what are you hearing? >> republican and democratic senators. first on the republican side, they are simply dug in. it's very clear in talking to republican senators their view that witnesses will not change anything. there are republicans who are telling me that it will change zero minds. that's how one senator, roger marshall of kansas put it to me just now. that has echoed from a number of republican senators who are criticizing the move to go forward with witnesses because they argue that there's no jurisdiction by the united states senate to actually convict a former president. they say there should not be a trial because of their constitutional concerns, never mind that the senate affirmed

its constitutionality. but their opposition to this trial just will never get them to vote yes on the merits. and mitch mcconnell, senate republican leader putting out this morning that exact argument as well. so it's very unlikely that witnesses will change much in the minds of these republicans. but there are bipartisan discussions that are happening right now about how to proceed. i just spent a fair amount of time in the senate chamber watching the interactions among groups of senators to discuss how to move forward with witnesses, who else could come forward. one senator, joe manchin, was in the republican cloak room for a fair amount of time. he popped back out and talked to a democratic impeachment manager, congressman joaquin castro, so they're talking about how to structure a resolution to subpoena witnesses. we'll see if they have more witnesses beyond congresswoman jamie herrera beautler. maybe one witness on the trump

team side, maybe one witness on the democratic side. those are the discussions that are happening right now at this moment. incredibly fluid, incredibly chaotic, very surprising. will it change the end result? probably not, according to republican senators. but at the moment a lot of discussion about how to proceed next. that is what's happening right now on the floor of the senate. >> intense negotiation. thank you so much. as you're talking, we can see on the side of the screen just one example of what you're referring to. we can see what i believe is the democratic of michigan talking to lisa murkowski, republican of alaska, and i'm not sure who the other senator is there. oh, it's mark kelly, the new democratic senator from arizona, who obviously is -- i shouldn't say obviously, but is certainly a moderate democrat and is somebody in what had been a republican seat. so you can see the conversations in plain sight going on.

then, of course, on the other side of the senate you saw rand paul and lindsey graham. so what they are trying to figure out, as manu just reported, is the what now and the who now. because you're taking us on a walk down history's lane or memory lane from the last time this happened in 1999, the last time there was an impeachment with witnesses. it was very, very intense, the negotiations to get to that point, to get to just those three witnesses. and it took some time. i don't know, maybe i'm wrong, but this is so partisan and so emotionally charged for lots of reasons, that it's hard to imagine them coming up in the next five minutes with the deal on exactly who they're going to call. >> and to manu's point about some republicans telling him this isn't going to change votes, we're in a moment that all of a sudden the argument

that we shouldn't even be here, this trial is not constitutional, which so many republicans voted for, obviously, and they want to hang their acquittal vote on that, are now being forced to buy into this process, some want to get their own witnesses in there, and therefore they're fully bought into the notion that this trial is taking place. i just think it makes it a little more complicated for them to say we shouldn't be here when they're also negotiating ways to make sure they are there and fully engaged in this trial. but i do think what you were saying and talking to abby about before, that jamie herrera beautler's statement about additional patriots, it is a call to arms. she doesn't want to just stand alone. she believes there are many points of observation to the events of that day, to the president's state of mind, to

what he was conveying to others that should be part of this record, too. she makes that clear. she is not wanting to just stand on an island here. she actually is putting out a call for all of the evidence possible. >> and you were saying earlier while we were in a break here that she, just to remind our viewers, she was one of the ten republicans in the house who voted yes on impeachment. i'm going to quote you now, david, that she doesn't want her vote to be in vain. >> look, if you're a republican and you voted for impeachment, you know that you put your political life in some way, shape or form, on the line. and you wouldn't do that unless you thought it was extremely important. when you talk to the republican lawmakers in the house who have already cast that vote, they feel very strongly about two underlying things. one, about the immorality of what trump did leading up to the

sn insurrection, but having been witnesses, they're shocked at his refusal to defend them. and once you've already made that decision, what comes next is that you have to kind of stand by it, you know, because otherwise -- i mean, what was it all for? that's what she's doing here, basically saying i made this decision not because i'm an outlier. i have the same information that many of you do. this is the part of jamie gangel's reporting that i think is critical. kevin mccarthy read out his call to other members, so it is fairly widely own among republicans what was said on that call. jamie herrera beautler is not the only person who knows and that's what she's saying in her statement, i know that you know, too, and you should come forward and say so. >> she's the one so far who has the guts to say so publicly. let's get to jamie gangel, whose reporting on all of this

certainly changed the day and maybe the course of history in some way, shape or form. i know you're continuing to report right now and getting information about the discussions among house managers. what are you hearing? >> reporter: so what i think we're going to see is that they are going to be reaching out, and i think they're hoping that some people are going to reach back out to them. people who want to be witnesses. i don't think they want to get into fights over subpoenas -- excuse me, at least not right now. the other thing i'm hearing about is, you know, do they talk to the other -- sorry. >> get a drink of water. this is what happens when you spend all your time on the phone with your sources, you need a drink of water. we'll give you that, jamie. >> thank you. first time in 40 years. so there are trump inner circle

people that they are wondering will anyone come forward. not just about what happened on january 6th, but what happened between election day and january 6th. the big lie. what did people hear? what did people see? people who might have firsthand knowledge of what the president was saying and planning. so i think that what we're going to see now is a wide net and this could go on potentially for a long time, dana. >> yeah, it sure could, because this is not easy. we don't even know if they know the answers to those very real and pertinent questions that you just posed and it might take a while. we might be in this quorum call for some time or they might agree to adjourn while they have

the conversations in a month robust way. thank you so much for that. i'm going to toss it back to you. >> let's bring in someone who understands -- actually, let's go back to the senate. i think they're about to resume. >> mr. president, as i understand it, there are discussions under way, and so i ask unanimous consent the senate recess until 12:30 p.m. >> is there no objection, we stand in recess until 12:30. >> thank you, mr. president. >> a 45-minute recess. that 45-minute recess could turn out to be more than an hour. usually the amount of time they suggest is going to be recess is expanded. but that's normal in the u.s. senate. let discuss the confusion that's going on right now with the former senate parliamentarian joining us right now. thank you so much for joining us. walk us through -- first of all, give us your reaction to the surprise, the totally surprise development today when all of a sudden the house impeachment

managers said they do want at least one witness. >> good morning, wolf. thanks for having me on. this is the senate i've come to know and love over 35 years. it's totally unpredictable. when you think you know what's going to happen, it throws you a curveball. number two, the senate usually does nothing slowly -- i'm sorry, usually does nothing quickly and the impeachment trial was chugging along on a non-senate type pace. what you have now is a decision by the senate to open the door for further motions to subpoena witnesses and documents. and so the senate by motion has said we can have other motions, and so there will be debate on other specific motions with respect to specific witnesses. the senate will debate those. then if the senate agrees to subpoena witnesses, there will ab process of discovery. and that could take quite a

while. you mentioned the senate recess, this 45-minute recess will take probably an hour because that's how the senate works. it never works as quickly as you think it will. and the discovery phase of this trial, which nobody anticipated, by law and by practice, usually takes quite a long time. >> i just want to get your thought, alan. so let's say they decide that congresswoman jamie herrera beautler of washington state, a republican, will be called as a witness. walk us through. they do a deposition first, and is that private or is that public? >> well, it's unclear. there were no witnesses in the first trump impeachment trial, so the last example we had in a presidential impeachment trial is the clinton trial where the depositions took place by videotape and the senate then decided what, if anything, to show on the floor of the senate.

there's a wild card here under the senate's impeachment rules. the senate was a rule 11, which creates, gives the senate the authority to convene an impeachment committee. it was designed to take testimony. the legislative history of the creation of that committee, was not intended to be used in presidential impeachment. however, it's there, it's on the books, and there's a remote possibility that the senate can use that committee. it's unclear whether that committee was intended to be used for former presidents. so this process is going to slow things down , the question is hw will the process play out. >> you heard jamie raskin say that they want to do his deposition, they want to take deposition from this congresswoman, jamie herrera

beautler, but they also want her contemporaneous notes. how does that happen? walk us through that process. >> you can have a subpoena for human system, you can have a subpoena for documents. i don't know if they can be joined in one subpoena, but by all means both personal testimony and documentary evidence is subject to the subpoena power of the congress. so it is possible, and it would seem to me it would be prudent in advance for the house managers to talk to the congresswoman to find out exactly what she might say and what documents she retained. >> so let's say they get -- the house impeachment managers get to hear testimony from this congresswoman. then the trump defense lawyers, they say they want the current vice president of the united states or the mayor of washington, d.c. or the speaker of the house to testify.

what happens then? >> well, the house -- i'm sorry, the president's counsel would make a motion to subpoena the individuals they would like to see subpoenaed and that motion is subject to a majority vote on the floor of the senate. >> so they would need 51 votes in order to get the individuals they want to question, they want testimony from. they would need 51 votes, is that right? >> yes. >> and if the house democrats, the house impeachment team, they want more witnesses, they simply need 51 votes as well? >> that's correct. >> so the democrats, they seem to have an advantage because there are at least four or five republicans who are voting with them in favor of witnesses. that's significant. >> it's possible that the democrats might lose some republican votes if the republicans who are willing to authorize subpoenas on behalf of the managers believe that the senate is being unfair to the

president's counsel in not supporting subpoenas. so that's an interesting political situation to play out. we'll see how firm the republican support is for witnesses from the managers' side if there are no witnesses being permitted from the president's counsel's side. >> we'll see what happens. it could delay this trial for a matter of a few days, or maybe even longer, is that right? >> yes, i think things have slowed down substantially. >> we'll stay in touch with you. alan frumin understands all of this stuff very well. katilan collins, i understand you're getting more information from the trump team. what are you hearing? >> reporter: as we noted earlier, they are just as caught off guard as everyone else is, but the question is, if we're getting witnesses and they're figuring out what this is going

to look like, who they are calling and right now we're looking at this picture that we just saw from jason miller, the trump team's adviser who brought out a list saying they have a prepared list of 300 witnesses that they would like length that the former president's team is willing to go to try to drag this out if this is the road they're going down with this. top names on the list, house speaker nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, vice president harris among others they say they're going to want to hear from in the house impeachment managers are now going to call witnesses of their own. of course we're still waiting and the senate seems to still be waiting to see how all of this is going to work out but that is what's happening behind is scenes right now with the former president's defense team. >> very interesting indeed. kaitlan, thank you, john king is, of course, with me. this is a real bombshell right now. i think it's fair to say. because we don't really appreciate -- we don't really understand what is about to

unfold. >> right, and so what are you seeing? you're seeing the traditional reflex of team trump, which number one, one of his lawyers lied on the floor of the united states senate, lie and bully, threat. we'll call 300 witnesses, they're not going to get 300 witnesses. but that's the -- what they want to play because they know if this ends today their client gets acquitted. they're not the republican votes to convict president trump. so they're going to now do whatever they can, including bluster and bullying, let's keep going and get this done today. i was texting, while you were having that conversation with alan, a text back from two senators, democrat and republican, who both said i don't know, essentially. a lot more to it. but right now this is what's going on right now, if you want witnesses, how many, can we reach agreement on what to do today? do you want the congresswoman, what does team trump stay, first it was the quorum call if they could work this out. and the recess, negotiating over

what to do next. and the senators who are the jurors are largely in the dark. they're all talking amongst themselves and being told by the leadership they're trying to work this deal out but they don't know where it goes from here. when we came to work this morning when mitch mcconnell said he was going to vote to acquit it seemed at that moment that would happen today then the house managers decided we're not ready, we're going to ask for witnesses then, up the stakes and ask for witnesses, we are in the land of the unknown, "a," if they can work this out and where we go from there and there's no question, team trump is caught off guard here and it's also no question, it's a fact they have been outlawyered on the floor of the united states senate, and so they woke up this morning thinking they would go to bed tonight with their client acquitted. now they don't know what's going to happen here. it's all open and unpredictable. there are risks for team trump and risks for the democrats as

well. in the clinton impeachment trial they stopped to depose witnesses, it changed nothing, just added days to the trial. >> the clinton trial went on for 37 days. this is day five of this trial. but it could now, who knows how long it could take. >> that's the republican -- that's what -- i'm not going to use the word threat. some threats are greater than others, i guess. the republican position is, you see a number of republican senators saying i thought you democrats wanted to advance the biden agenda. i thought you democrats wanted this over as quickly as possible. there's no question, a new president is up at camp david who wants to get a lot done who will be judged on covid and the economy and not on donald trump's impeachment trial. that will be part of the negotiation is, how many witnesses, how long will it take, what does the senate do in the meantime? if you delay this two weeks to take depositions, the senate could come back next week and do covid relief. trial mode, the senate does nothing else. the senators are moving around

there, sen senator cruz on capi hill. negotiation. >> they're all walking around right now, taken a recess. i guess it will be a half hour before they come back, but it could be a lot longer knowing the u.s. senate as we do, the recess that they said was 45 minutes could last a lot longer than that. >> they will not come back until they have -- they negotiate the next step. that doesn't mean they have a deal on the whole way out but they will not come back now until they negotiate the next step. trying to do in the quorum call. when they realized that wasn't working they decided to get off the floor and do this in a private room somewhere. >> the first trump impeachment trial went on for 21 days. the bill clinton impeachment trial in 1999 went on for 37 days. andrew johnson, back in the 1800s, went for 83 days, and acquittals. >> the big difference from trump trial one to trump trial two is that the democrats are in charge.

i know it's 50/50 but that's a big deal. >> everybody stand by, we're watching dramatic developments unfold at the united states senate. we thought there would be a vote today on either conviction or acquittal. that doesn't look like it's going to happen. they have approved 55-45, a vote to allow witnesses to start appearing, much more of our special coverage coming up. where we can finally be free.toe ♪“i've got to break free”♪ plan your future getaway with norwegian. sail safe. feel free.

sfx: [sounds of everyday life events, seen and heard in reverse] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ sfx: [sounds of fedex planes and vehicles engines] ♪ sfx: [sounds of children laughing and running, life moving forward] my plaque psoriasis... ...the itching ...the burning. the stinging. my skin was no longer mine. my psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen... painful.

emerge tremfyant™ with tremfya®, adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...can uncover clearer skin and improve symptoms at 16 weeks. tremfya® is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tremfya®. emerge tremfyant™ janssen can help you explore cost support options. hey malcolm, your podcasts are on audible right? and your new audiobook. with everything from mel robbins to blake griffin, is there a more fascinating place than audible? no. and i've done the research. of course you have. audiobooks, podcasts, audible originals. all in one place. we made usaa insurance for members like kate. a former army medic, made of the flexibility to handle whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once.

so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. it's time for the ultimate sleep number event on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. usaa. what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. no problem, with temperature balancing you can sleep better together. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. will it help me keep up with mom? you got this. so you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. save up to $800 on new sleep number 360 smart beds, plus, 0% interest for 36 months and free premium delivery when you add a base. ends monday. hmmm... where to go today? la? vegas? no, the desert. let's listen to this. louder.

take these guys? i mean, there's room. maybe next time, fellas. now we're talking. alright. let's. go. this is cnn breaking news. >> we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world to special live coverage. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. today an unexpected twist in the second impeachment trial of the former president donald trump. five republicans joined all 50 democrats to vote to include witnesses in this trial. right now the senate is preparing a vote to subpoena specific witnesses, senators inside the chamber and trump's legal team, they were all shocked by this development, a source tells cnn. the push for witnesses stems

from cnn's reporting last night, revealing that while the capitol was under attack on january 6th, trump got into a shouting match with the house minority leader kevin mccarthy. trump reportedly saying, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. mccarthy's response, quote, who the "f" do you think you are talking to? now the house managers want to hear from republican congresswoman jamie herrera butler, she claims to have relevant information about that phone conversation, plus other witnesses could also be called by both sides. the vote to include witnesses has upended what was supposed to be a speedy finish to this historic trial, with a vote on acquittal or conviction later today. let's bring in our special correspondent jamie gangel, she broke all of this reporting for us last night. jan

jamie, the details speak to trump's state of mind during the insurrection. >> absolutely, wolf. just step back for a moment and think about former president trump's words that day. i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. kevin mccarthy, the republican leader, had just told trump that the capitol had been breaches, that the rioters, the mob were breaking into his office. he told him that his staff was running for their lives, and he begged him, he pleaded with him for help and to tell them to stop. and instead of doing any of that donald trump sides clearly these are his own words with the mob. we know this from about this phone call. not only from republican congresswoman jamie herrera

butler who i spoke to at length yesterday, but from many other republican members of congress because kevin mccarthy wasn't shy about this phone call. he wanted his members to know. i spoke to one member yesterday who is not someone who voted for impeachment, a senior republican who said that kevin mccarthy told him about the phone call in a conference where there were many other members. so this was not a secret but i do think what's critical here is, wolf, jamie herrera butler and the other nine republicans who voted for impeachment, they are not backing down. and specifically she's being called to testify because she wants to testify, and he has notes, wolf.

>> tell us about those contemporaneous notes. jamie raskin not only wants a deposition from her, they could do it via zoom, but also wants those contemporaneous notes. tell us about that. >> so what congresswoman herrera butler told me yesterday was that actually since the insurrection, and through the impeachment, she started keeping copious notes. she has a spiral notebook. and she was keeping the notes all along because she was trying to come to a decision whether or not to vote for impeachment. that was the reason for the notebook. and so when she was talking to kevin mccarthy, they had a phone call. and he told her directly about what president trump had said. she had that notebook, and she took copious, careful, realtime

notes. so i think it's important to note it wasn't just that she was taking notes on that particular phone call. she had really been memorializing everything that she knew about the insurrection. and to help her make a decision about how to vote on impeachment. >> and she's clearly ready to testify in a statement she put out after your excellent exclusive reporting she concluded by saying to the patriotss who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening or even to the former vice president, if you have something to add here, now would be the time. she's ready to testify. let's see what happens on that front. jamie, once again, excellent, excellent reporting. john king is with me watching, it's confusing right now because the senate did vote 55-45, five republicans going with the democrats, to go ahead and allow witnesses to appear before this second trump primpeachment tria

but now they're going to vote individually on who the witnesses could be. >> individually on each witness or the managers could bring a list of several and the trump team could bring a list of several. unclear how many votes there would be. now the issue is to agree what goes forward. it's a staredown. the house managers have said they want the congresswoman and her notes. manager lee and manager raskin did say if that brings up new information, it's possible he would come back and want more. how a trial works. you bring in a witness, you get testimony, leads you something else, you want someone or something else, documents, records or person. the challenge is for the trump team to have a counterproposal to see if they go forward. that's why you see out of the box the trump team saying we want 300 witnesses, that's never going to happen. the idea they'll stare each other down and have a negotiation. the question is, the senate's supposed to come back in 25 minutes, can they negotiate it by then or do we have now, the trial has already been sent into the unpredictable phase. and paused right now. and what happens?

how long do these negotiations go on? first you have to settle the new terrain, and then you enter that new terrain with presumably at least one witness, if there's one, there's likely going to be two or more and then off we go. >> and if there were decent relations between the house impeachment managers and the defense counsel's for trump, maybe they would be able to come up with some sort of agreement but i think that relationship is not very decent right now. >> there's not a relationship there and, again, the president's attorneys have been fish out of water in that they're not constitutional lawyers. they're not impeachment lawyers. they've been outmatched so far, frankly. and so now i'm sure they're getting outside advice as well trying to figure out how to go forward and again they know they're not going to get 300 witnesses. the senate would have to vote so then the question becomes in a court of law the issue becomes relevance and this is a, you know, impeachment court so it's not rules -- it's not a judge and it's not trial rules but you're still going to have a debate now about essentially what can each side stomach? what can you get the votes for? >> a real dramatic surprise

unfolding today. dana, back to you. >> wolf, we have new information from sources in both parties about a discussion that is going on right now about how to move forward. and what i am told by, again, sources on both sides of the aisle, and our colleagues manu raju and lauren fox is the following, avoid witnesses and instead of bringing witnesses, in particular jamie herrera butler, put into the record of the trial the article that jamie gangel did, cnn's article about her explanation, about what she said so that it will be part of the trial. it will be part of the official consideration for these senators to use when they make their final vote. and the terminology that i was told is under consideration is that it would be called the stipulation as to what the congresswoman would say if called. and our legal team could probably explain this better

than i but this is legalese that they are discussing aimed at appeasing and appealing to the house managers who want this information as part of the record by calling her for a witness but instead of calling ja jamie heerrera butler as a witness, her official statement. i'm going to bring in abby and david now. >> can i ask you one quick question? >> yes. >> your sources may not have gotten into this. would they be able to subpoena her documentation, the contemporaneous notes without subpoenaing her -- >> maybe. >> -- calling her to testify. >> before i answer that question, i want to underscore, this is a discussion going on. we don't know that this is where this is going to head. there are likely other discussions going on and this is across party lines, republicans and democrats trying to figure out how to go from here. that's a really good question about whether or not they could subpoena her notes.

my suspicion is, the answer would be no, and that no would come from republicans in order to get this done. but, you know, we'll see. and what is really interesting to me is what this underscores is how much neither side in the senate wants to get this thing -- neither side wants this to continue, they want to get this thing wrapped up. >> for different reasons. >> for very different -- and by the way, political reasons. >> yes, this is all about -- >> this isn't about the substance of the trial and whether or not they believe donald trump should be convicted or acquitted. this is about the politics of the other business that they have to do for the country. >> yeah, we were just talking about this in the break. abby was saying as well, like this whole trial, right, the facts are on one side here, the facts put forth in evidence all week are on the side of the house managers. that's the compelling case we've all talked about. so bringing up more facts and more evidence is obviously not likely to wear well for the

president's side of the equation in the defense here. that's why it's not great for the republicans. not because the vote at the end may change but because this is not a good look for donald trump, for his legacy, for his continued quest to maintain the grip he seems to still have on the republican party in many ways. this is -- he's at a low point in his political standing with the country. and to continue to allow the house managers to argue this case is not good for them. on the flip side for the democrats it's not that their case gets worse because the trial goes on it's because they're not moving on with the biden presidency front and center in terms of the issues that are most front in mind for americans, getsing vaccinations into arms, getting kids back to school, getting the economy repaired, solving the crisis that biden was hired by the american people to solve. so they would like to get on to get his team in place and to move forward with that. so it's -- it works politically for both sides, perhaps, to find a path, like you're discovering

in your conversations, through this impeachment trial without extenuating the trial for just days and weeks on end. >> there's something else i want to add, abby, as i bring you in. one of the sources described what's going on on the senate floor, they feel like they're on a knife's edge with regard to the tension and with regard to what could happen next. even the democrats don't want an endless flood of witnesses, they won't agree to that. that is part of this discussion and probably other discussions about how to go forward. >> right. but we should be real about the difference between the level of panic on one side versus the other. the republicans are way more concerned about witnesses right now than the democrats are. you're hearing from senator ron johnson that he thinks this is a huge mistake, that it would inflame the situation, lindsey graham is frantically trying to figure out how to make this work. you've got other republicans

telling our colleagues on the hill that they are furious about the prospect that there could be witnesses in this case, and then you have people like congresswoman marjorie taylor greene effectively threatening congresswoman herrera butler in a tweet saying the 74 million people who voted for trump are watching, saying that she basically threw minority leader kevin mccarthy under the bus. there's a sense of panic on the republican side of this that really underscores what you were just saying, david, which is that the facts are not in trump's favor here and it also underscores the ineptitude and the malpractice of trump's lawyers. we are in this position in part because his attorney continued to say that all of this stuff was hearsay, saying that it shouldn't even be considered because it hadn't been brought into the case. now democrats are saying let's bring it into the case. it's up to them to say we'll discount that.

they have been discounting the value of using news articles as part of this case, discounting the word of senators and congress people who have said on the record things that are relevant to this case, and it's not because this is great lawyering, it's because they don't really know what they are doing and they have elongated this process for their client, which is not -- clearly not in his favor. >> you're exactly right. erin, i'm going to toss it back to you. there are times when things are not preor daned or when senators think it's preordained and then it kind of goes into chaos. this was a new one because the senators on both sides of the aisle, but in particular the democratic senators, i'm hearing, you know, to a person are telling me, and our colleagues as well, that they didn't know the managers were going to call for witnesses until it actually happened and so now you are seeing and hearing the wheeling and dealing that is going on among senators to try to figure out how to deal

with this now. >> it's really amazing when you think about it that they didn't talk about that before, that they kept it so close to the vest. i mean, as you point out, that is part of what makes this so stunning. let's go to our chief congressional correspondent manu raju, dana reporting on the negotiations about what this might -- some sort of possible off ramp on witnesses as they're trying to negotiate on this whole prospect. what are you learning about the negotiations and what we could end up seeing? >> they're intense right now, these negotiations, and they're a bunch of ideas floating around. i've spoken to a number of people who were directly involved in these talks, or have been briefed about what's going on and the -- the upshot is it is not resolved yet. there is not a clear indication yet about exactly what the senate will vote on and whether there will actually be witnesses going forward. as dana reported there is a discussion about whether or not to submit evidence directly into the record. congresswoman jamie herrera butler's account of her conversation about kevin

mccarthy's talk with donald trump on the day of the riot, that is one possibility. but there's also still a possibility that they could bring her forward for a video deposition, and exactly when that would happen is a question. one of the things i've heard from republicans that i have spoken to in the hallways just now is that there's a push that for every witness that democrats get there should be a trump team witness as well. so that is really one of the crux of the discussion right now. can they craft an agreement that will allow the trump team to get a chance to call -- the same amount of witnesses as democrats have. now that would require democrats to agree to that because they can vote on their own by simple majority, to push forward. >> right. >> a motion to subpoena specific witnesses but there's an effort to try to do on a bipartisan basis which is why these discussions are happening intensely behind the scenes, chuck schumer having a discussion with managers, mitch mcconnell having discussions with the trump team and trading

ideas back and forth. we'll see how this resolves. if they can get a deal by 12:30, we'll see. they're trying to sort this out. end the trial today, move forward with witness testimony. will that change anything? doesn't seem likely, if they go with witness testimony it will delay the proceedings for some time. erin. >> manu, thank you very much. first of all, what manu just put out, fast and furious discussions, no one expected this. which is what makes this so exciting by the way that we're all here and people expect a dry senate proceeding, that's not what they got. but this whole idea of one for one, on its face this seems like a fair prospect. >> on its face it does the idea of saying, look, i am going to present some -- there's something that arises under that testimony that requires you to present different evidence, you'll have an opportunity to sort of cross or to try to offer something different. but it could easily deinvolve into a tit for tat, where you're simply trying to undermine as opposed to inform and the whole

point of the witnesses is actually to inform, to figure out what of the factual issues in dispute can they be clarified? i suspect that this whole thing, and i agree with you, the idea that this was not foreseeable, that you actually had witnesses be called, as raskin pointed out, this was precisely the morning -- the point in this morning that was ordained for him to call for witnesses. if they were unprepared because they checked out, as we heard from reporting earlier in the week, going into the galley with their feet up, doodling and scribbling. you weren't paying attention. on its face it could be something worked out to have somebody present evidence and rebut as long as it was comprehensive to dress every aspect. i could see a scenario where the one witness that's called by the house impeachment managers leads to four other points of dispute, and would go beyond that one for one. >> it goes outside the scope as well. because, i mean, look, the trump team has not taken this

seriously. va nder -- this joke of a list of 300 people. if that's the way you're looking at this. >> it's completely an empty threat, it's never going to happen. stipulations happen all the time in the law and trials. it sounds like what they're talking about here is we're going to agree to jamie gangel's reporting, if she testified, this is what representative butler would say. they're not necessarily agreeing it's true, but that she would say this. a stipulation here is a copout. a stipulation has no voice, there is no testimony, there's no direct, there's no cross-exam. history members john dean. history will never remember a stipulation. >> the point about republicans on the run, they also have the

majority. they don't have to vote to have any trump witnesses, they could vote for their witnesses. >> right, but the problem is they know people are watching, and i think the big issue here, in some ways, is that, you know, both sides are sort of like the dog that caught the mail truck. i think what surprised people was how hard vanderveen went after the house managers yesterday. remember the first presentation that the trump lawyers made was bumbling and sort of all over the place. he went after the house managers and the quality of their investigation and after the due process. i think it was in light of that, and directly in response to that, that representative raskin said, all right, well you want to question how we've done our investigation, we are going to button a couple things up. and now they're in this kind of situation and it may be, you know, based on cnn's reporting,

it may be that both sides are looking for a way out to try to get this whole thing over with. >> do you think mitch mcconnell would compromise if he were the majority leader here? >> i don't think so. look, i think you have a trial. and whether it's in a court of law or whether it's on the floor of the senate, the notion that you're never going to have a witness, that you're not going to depose a witness, i think, was foolhardy from day one. i'm not an expert on impeachments -- >> i've been saying the same thing, right gloria? >> right, we've agreed here in our corner. i do think that you had jamie gangel's great reporting last night, and that gave jamie raskin an opening. and he took it. and he said, okay, you were saying we hadn't done our work. well, we offered to depose donald trump, that's not going to happen, well now we're going to offer to depose the congresswoman. and what they're trying to do is look for a way that they ca

canfy -- finagle this. they want to go home, let's be honest about that. >> right. >> but they also have to get to the truth. and there are threats going back and forth, which always happens, we're going to depose 300 people. they have to figure out a way to get out of this without embarrassing themselves because right now it looks kind of foolish. they all agreed to this organizing resolution, both sides. you can't complain about due process when you signed off on the organizing resolution. >> also, laura, i want to make one other point here. if you do what let's call it a copout, would be to take jamie gangel's article and putting it in the word. you're allowing the republicans to say, she put it in quotes, but i have no idea if it's true. you're allowing them to dismiss it whereas having her testify is different. >> yes, it is, because you're

able to ask questions, follow-up questions, clarification, who else was around you when kevin mccarthy said this to you? what made you want to take notes? are there other notes? the idea of use ago stipulation and using the article, which by the way is ironic because the entire trump defense team the word reportedly, they kept saying it, being dismissive and saying all you said is reportedly, and news means nothing, and you're giving weight to it, add a stipulation, it's absurd, it's almost, frankly, as absurd as what we saw yesterday when as they should have been honored, the capitol police officers got a standing ovation by senators who had checked out so much in an impeachment trial that they're willing to not even hold accountable the person that put those officers in danger. and then today they were surprised about what they were even voting for. i mean, it's astounding to think about, just how much they have checked out from this process. >> it is.

so let me ask you, okay, in this idea of one for one, the thing that would make sense, now jason miller's list that he was holding up had, you know, nancy pelosi on it, it was ridiculous. but what would make sense, if you were going to hear from congresswoman butler would be to hear from mccarthy, to hear from him himself. she put it in quotes, you told her about it. let's read them back to you. on that same day he went on fox news pleading and begging for the president to do sng. that's quite record on mccarthy. he can't back off it much. that's what they should do if they cared about the truth, right, put mccarthy on. >> and they're supporting documents. people made prior statements in the media. representative butler has handwritten notes and david chalian raised this question in the prior segment, can they subpoena her notes? absolutely. you can get those notes, introduce them into the record. whether or not she testifies. and i just keep thinking about this big picture. wouldn't it be a shame for our constitutional system and the american public if we had two consecutive impeachments with

not a single witness. i hope that house managers understand the importance of that to our system. >> somebody who actually, you know, handles impeachments, you know, that is -- that is definitely true and this one in particular because at least in the last one the house took testimony under oath, you know before house committees and that was submitted in the senate. i was critical of that because the senate didn't take its own testimony. but here we don't even have that. we have zero sworn testimony, zero sworn testimony. >> let me flip the question. if you were going to do a one for one, elie, why wouldn't you ask for mccarthy. why wouldn't the democrats ask for mccarthy? >> just do that now, right. >> talk to the person who had the call. >> yeah, that is something they could definitely do. mccarthy might resist a subpoena and then they wind up in litigation and this thing isn't over today and everybody can't go home right away. but the other piece is, you know, the trump folks will say,

wait a minute, you know, we thought this was going to be this slap dash, you know, kind of who cares process, if we're going to do a real trial, we actually do have some witnesses, if we're going to do a real trial we've got to do it fairly. >> wasn't the whole thinking before this started that this was a done deal? >> right. >> people were just going through the process -- >> that's a problem. >> and that's a problem. because everybody thought, okay, we know where the republicans are, we know how they voted on the constitutional issue, et cetera, et cetera, they're not going to change their minds, therefore the president of the united states wants us to get this over with quickly. so this is kind of pro forma. >> what does it say to you on that that raskin did not talk to schumer, that there had not been communication? >> you know, i think raskin -- >> about the witnesses issue, i'm sorry, to be specific. >> i think raskin is doing what he feels he has to do, and maybe chuck schumer might have disagreed with him on it, we don't know the -- we don't know the conversation. >> right. >> but this goes to the whole

point of why are they there? they're there to have a trial. and they decided they all knew the verdict before they even got on the senate floor. and i think that was the beginning of the problem here which is in trials you guys are lawyers, you don't know the verdict. >> the house impeachment managers they weren't there to play. they came prepared ready to do a trial. >> yeah. >> that republicans were unaware of their plan. >> your proverbial reputation is on the line. you're not going to allow someone else to mess with it. >> they came prepared to do this sort of quick process. >> we're standing by for the senate to come back into session any moment here. they could extend it but we're waiting and everyone's scrambling to decide, what witnesses they're going to call, what's going to happen here, all unfolding, history, in front of our eyes.

♪ beds get sick too protection. lysol laundry sanitizer kills 99.9% of illness-causing bacteria detergents leave behind. proven to kill covid-19 with relapsing forms of ms, there's a lot to deal with. not just unpredictable relapses. all these other things too. who needs that kind of drama?

kesimpta is a once-monthly injection that may help you put this rms drama in its place. it reduced the rate of relapses and active lesions and slowed disability progression. don't take kesimpta if you have hepatitis b, and tell your doctor if you have had it, as it could come back and cause serious liver problems or death. kesimpta can cause serious side effects, including infections, especially when taken before or after other medicines that weaken the immune system. a rare, potentially fatal brain infection called pml may happen with kesimpta. tell your doctor if you had or plan to have vaccines, or if you are or plan to become pregnant. kesimpta may cause a decrease in some types of antibodies. talk to your doctor about any injection-related reactions. the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infections and headache. ask your healthcare provider about kesimpta. dramatic results. less rms drama.

wanna build a gaming business that breaks the internet? dramatic results. that means working night and day... ...and delegating to an experienced live bookkeeper for peace of mind. your books are all set. so you can finally give john some attention. trusted experts. guaranteed accurate books. intuit quickbooks live. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a short list of quality candidates from our resume database. claim your seventy five dollar credit, when you post your first job at indeed.com/home.

any minute now the senate is set to come back into session after the trump impeachment trial was derailed by a vote to include witnesses. no one knows, at least not yet, how this is going to go. sources say there are intense talks going on behind the scenes right now, about what happens next. let's go to our chief white house correspondent kaitlan collins first, this sudden twist in the trial comes as trump's legal team apparently is in turmoil right now. what are you learning? >> reporter: wolf, that's one thing that is kind of being thrown into the chaos whether or not this is going to drag out for weeks. while you're hearing from the former president's legal team say their happy to drag this out and try to call a lot of witnesses that is not actually the case behind the scenes and they would like for this to wrap up as much as a lot of people on capitol hill. what's been going on this whole week as the trial has been ongoing there have been constant tensions within the legal team,

disorganized, chaotic, a lot of tension in their meetings where they disagree on the strategy going forward and they've got this backdrop of their client who has gotten increasingly angry as the week has gone on. he did like michael v vvan der vee n arguing with jamie raskin. they do not know how to deal with the outbursts of the president when he's critical and angry. two attorneys not very familiar with former president trump, they don't know his staff knew when he was going to be angry about something and how to not respond or wait for him to calm down. they're new to this. that's another factor playing into this. they've had constant feedback from republican senators, people like mike lee, ted cruz, lindsey graham telling them how they think they should be going about this, they've been resistant to and irritated by the advice they've been getting.

what this paints a picture of is a legal team that does not want to be a legal team for much longer, they may be forced to be if witnesses are on call and they have to continue on with this. they were under the impression this was all going to wrap up today, and they'd be able to go home and go on their merry way. they're facing the prospect that they may have to stay together as a legal team for an extended period of time. it's not clear yet, of course, because there is so much confusion over where this is going. a pretty strained behind the scenes tension going on within the legal team even before this witness drama started unfolding. >> looks like the senate could get back into session very soon. kaitlan, thank you, lauren fox is up on capitol hill for us. what's the latest you're hearing on the witness negotiations that are happening behind the scenes? >> reporter: well, those negotiations obviously still going, wolf, and there was so much surprise when raskin decided to move ahead and ask for that witness earlier today. surprising even to some managers' aides who had been

working with their bosses through this process. we are getting new information, wolf, on what mike lee engaged to house managers. if you remember his call that he received from former president donald trump on january 6th has been the subject of a lot of confusion surrounding what trump knew and when he knew it. in an effort to try to clarify that lee provided a list of his phone calls from january 6th to the house managers that i have now since obtained. and in this list of phone calls there is a call from 2:26 from what he says is the white house. so i think that that is significant when we are talking about the timeline of what trump knew, and when. potentially the question, of course, is did trump know when he tweeted at 2:24 that the vice president was in danger on the floor? because tuberville had said he told the president on the phone when mike lee handed his phone to tuberville that he had to get off the phone because pence had just been rushed out.

the question was whether or not trump tweeted before or after lee providing this document, arguing that, of course, this call happened in a way that trump would not have been aware from that call what was going on. now potentially obviously the president of the united states at the time would have had a sense of what was going on in the united states senate from other security apparatuses but i think it's one of the things that mike lee is trying to do here is to distance the president from what he knew and when so providing those records like i said or this list of calls to the house managers. wolf? >> very interesting indeed. thanks very much to lauren fox up on the hill. we're standing by for the senate to resume. the session of this trial, we expect that to happen fairly soon. you can see senators back there on the floor of the senate. dana, you're watching all of this very closely, you've done some excellent reporting on a possibility that the house impeachment managers could find a way to avoid actually calling a witness or two. >> it's actually the senators

who are trying to come up with the deal because, you know, unlike a regular trial, this is one where the jury actually votes on the rules of the road. and so this is just the latest that the jury/senators are trying to figure out with all of the dynamics that go into that, not just the substance of the trial, but the politics surrounding it, and things like joe biden's agenda and whether that's going to get derailed. i want to bring in abby and david and i actually just want to touch on, before we talk about the negotiations going on, about what lauren just reported, that she got senator mike lee's phone records. why does this matter? this matters because there are two things going on. one is, and they all have to do with then president trump's state of mind, whether or not he was -- never mind, you know, discouraging the riot as it was happening realtime, but maybe even encouraging it, or just disregarding it and not acting as a commander in chief should.

one was the conversation that jamie gangel reported about the kevin mccarthy/donald trump one. the other which we saw play out on the senate floor over the past couple of days is the question of whether donald trump knew that mike pence had been evacuated and whether or not effectively he cared. and so with the mike lee records what he's trying to do is show that then president was not told by senator tuberville after he called that he was evacuated until -- when they talked he didn't know that he was evacuated, effectively. >> whether he cared, part, i don't think is in dispute. he never called mike pence. mike pence we've known through reporting was not pleased with that. his family was with him. there was no -- they didn't speak for several days. so there was no real sense, right, that donald trump expressed any kind of concern or care for mike pence's safety, in fact, he had spent days drumming up consternation among his base

with mike pence, including at the rally. it is more here i think that we're learning that's so important, dana, is the timeline. >> exactly. >> because we have been led to believe by the house managers that tuberville's conversation with president trump on mike lee's cell phone occurred prior to trump tweeting yet again about mike pence. so there was the trump tweet at 2:24 p.m. about mike pence not living up to his preferred assignment here, to somehow unconstitutionally upend the election and give in to the big lie. we're now learning that that conversation didn't take place until perhaps 2:26. the tweet from donald trump had already been sent. even if tuberville did tell president trump as he says vice president pence was evacuated

from the chamber, that information would have gotten to donald trump from tuberville's telling, two minutes after he had already tweeted egging on mike pence. it wasn't the other way around, which is how the house managers presented it. >> which is that he hung up the way it was suggested, by the house managers, is then president trump hung up the phone with tommy tuberville after hearing his vice president was being evacuated and then sent a tweet egging on the rioters against mike pence. >> yeah, i think it's very significant for all of those reasons. it does not explain, i think this is an unanswered question, that jim acosta has been reporting, the house managers are trying to get to the bottom of, was there communication from pence's team about the whereabouts of mike pence, and whether he was evacuated, which he was, just a few minutes before that, so he was in the senate chamber, and had been evacuated from that chamber, the tweet comes. the phone call happens at 2:26

now. at the exact same time you saw the house impeachment managers playing the video of pence and his family being ushered down a set of stairs as they were being moved to a more secure location so that's the chain of events here. but there's still a period of time in which it is certainly possible, and i think your sources have indicated this, it seems unlikely that if the secret service had evacuated the vice president that no one in the white house would have been aware of that when it happened, or even prior to it happening. >> yeah, and that's really key. i want to bring in manu raju who's continuing to talk to senators as they're trying to work out how they're going to two forward. and manu, i know you spoke to a really, really key democratic senator. >> joe manchin in the center of all these debates told me there should be an equal number of witnesses on both sides. the democrats get one witness, he believes the trump team should get one witness, if they get two, there should be two. that's what he would support. he would not say that he would

back partisan basis, just democratic witnesses, but he's not the only one, angus king, told me moments ago he also supports having an equal number of witnesses on both sides. he didn't know if he could support just democrats going it alone. if they were to go forward with witnesses they would need to come to some sort of resolution to have an equal number on both sides and that could delay things even further. there's also talk if they go forward with witnesses the senate may need to go into an extended recess, maybe a week or two weeks, to get the witnesses deposed. get it into the record. we'll see if they're able to avoid all that. what joe manchin told me going to the chamber just now, he heard there was a deal on an organizing resolution to determine how to go forward with witness testimony. he just heard that. it's unclear if that's actually the case but we'll see when the senate leaders announce if there is a deal and if they've decided to avoid testimony. at the moment there's a push to get an equal number of witnesses in. >> we see the senate is filling

up. it looks like some of the leaders are coming back in, which from our experience, i know manu, you agree with that that perhaps they're getting close to saying something. whether or not that means there's a deal. as we watch this, i want to bring in jeff zeleny, who's walking the halls and working sources there. what are you hearing? >> >> we're going to learn a way forward from many juvejority led minority leader. if there are witnesses, the senate has already voted on how to proceed with those. that was part of the organizing principle that they voted on at the beginning of the trial. let's take a look at one key portion of that that lays out how witnesses would proceed. it says this, if the senate agrees to allow either the house of representatives or the former president to subpoena witnesses the witnesses shall first be deposed and the parties shall be allowed other appropriate discovery. the senate shall decide after deposition and other appropriate

discovery which if any witnesses shall testify pursuant to the rules of impeachment. so breaking that down, that means the deposition would come first and then the senate would decide if they would testify. this is something, if witnesses go forward, there is a structure in place for how that would go but we are about to learn, we believe, in the next few moments here on the senate floor exactly what is going to happen. we believe there's guidance coming on how long this will go, and of course many senators were hoping this would wrap this afternoon. we'll see if that happens here shortly, dana. >> that's right, i think i see the top of chuck schumer's head and the top of mitch mcconnell's head, and, you know, that means -- >> i'm sure they're thrilled. >> they're not in the back room, they're sitting there, which probably means -- >> right. >> as you said you're hearing from sources that we're going to hear something pretty soon. as we're waiting for this, david i just want to say that you were talking off camera about the

fact that, you know, they're doing this, and they're trying to find a way forward and a way to end the trial of former president donald trump, and current president joe biden, a lot of his agenda, at least in the fear future rests on this, but the fact that he is a former senator is quite interesting. >> we've heard from the white house and all of our sources have told us they want to keep the focus on their agenda and getting their presidency off the ground and their team in place. but there's one person, the president, who actually has much more affinity than anyone else this that building probably for the institution of the united states senate. he served there for 36 years. i was just sort of wondering, how much frustration could he really have because this is a man of the senate, and understands that the institution needs to work its will in these kinds of matters. and the joe biden we all know, that we've known for years and covered, would not want to short

circuit the senate's rights and responsibilities. he's in a different job and he has a different political pursuit, no doubt about that, but i just wonder if his sort of personal view of what's going on is matched entirely by all the people around him, who have the political imperative of wanting to get his agenda moving forward and get his cabinet in place. >> as you're saying that i'm looking at the floor, the tops of their heads. but you see senator chris coons who has joe biden's seat in the u.s. senate who has relationships across the aisle. he's sitting there talking to chuck schumer. so it raises the question whether or not that, you know, indicates some kind of bipartisan deal to either have witnesses or not have witnesses, or just some bipartisan deal to move forward. that's the only way they're going to move forward, particularly because of what manu was reporting. from angus king and from joe manchin. if they want to have witnesses from both sides, if any witness

at all, then they -- i mean, because the balance of power is so slight and so slim, then that matters. >> yeah, they need to be able to agree, particularly on the other side, right on the republican side, who they would be willing to allow to go forward. it means a 51 vote threshold, a narrow -- a majority, not two-thirds, but just a majority. and democrats already know who they want, the impeachment managers want jamie herrera butler but on the republican side not only has the republican team not decided who they want to call but who would the democrats agree to? that's the question they've got to face now. they've got to cobble together a handful, a little bit more of democrats to agree to whatever the republicans put on the table, and i'm not sure -- i'm not sure what that would look like, frankly, on either side of this. >> yeah, no, absolutely. all right, guys, we are watching. it feels like something is going to happen shortly.

wolf, i'm going to toss it over to you as we watch the tea leaves. >> looks like the senate floor, the senators are coming back, the impeachment managers are coming back. the trump legal defense team, they're coming back. so hopefully this thing will resume momentarily, we'll get some answers, john, and the key question, they voted that they will allow witnesses, but now apparently there's some effort under way to see if they can avoid having witnesses. if they have witnesses this could delay this trial not just for a few hours but potentially for days, if not weeks. >> you're watching dosh -- the leaders are both on the floor, the house managers are there, the president's defense team, at least some of them are there, they're waiting for a nod from somebody, somebody is checking with somebody, they think they have something to go forward, and they're waiting frlt final nod. you see the leader there. as dana and manu reporting, i was texting with senators, there's one proposal to put the statement from the congresswoman

in the record. if they did that, stipulate that, both sides agree to stipulate that can be in the record for senators to consider in their verdict and then move on, but the other proposal was, for witnesses, and as manu noted i got two texts from senators saying if that happens they think it will be a one to two week break, most likely a two week break. they've resolved this one way or the other. we're waiting for the leaders to stand. the senators are coming to the floor. dana just noticed chris coons coming, figuring this out as well as we wait to go forward. we thought this would be judgment day. now we're not quite sure. >> yeah, we thought there would be a vote. around 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. and that obviously doesn't look like it's going to happen. jamie gangel, you know, as i keep saying, you're partially responsible for this delay, for the witnesses, because of your exclusive cnn reporting last night. in which you noted -- hold on. let's go back. >> the senate will be in order.

majority leader. without objection, so ordered. mr. van d erveen. mr. castor, i'm sorry. >> may i be recognized? >> yes, you are, you are recognized. >> senators -- glasses are all fogged up. donald john trump, by his counsel, is prepared to stipulate that if the -- if representative herrera butler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on february 12th, 2021, and the former president's counsel is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time. >> thank you, mr. castor.

mr. raskin. >> thank you, mr. president. the managers are prepared to enter into the agreement. i will now read the statement. this is the statement congresswoman jamie herrera butler, february 12st, 2021. in my january 12th statement in support of the article of impeachment i referenced a conversation house minority leader kevin mccarthy relayed to me that he'd had with president trump while the january 6th attack was ongoing. hear are the details. when mccarthy finally reached the president on january 6th and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the capitol. mccarthy refuted that and told the president that these were trump supporters. that's when, according to mccarthy, the president said, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the

election than you are. since i publicly announced my decision to vote for impeachment, i have shared these details in countless conversations with constituents and colleagues and multiple times through the media and other public forums. i told it to the daily news of long view on january 17th. i've shared it with local county republican executive board members. as well as other constituents who asked me to explain my vote. i shared it with thousands of residents on my telephone town hall on february 8th. mr. president, i now move that the senate admit the statement into evidence. >> without objection, the statement will be admitted into evidence. and does either party wish to make any further motions related to witnesses or documents at this time? >> mr. president, the

president's counsel have no further motions. >> and mr. president, we have no further motions either. >> excuse me, then the chair would note that neither party wishes to make further motions under section 6 of senate resolution 47. therefore the next question is on admission of the evidence submitted by both parties pursuant to section 8 of the resolution. the majority leader is recognized. >> now as we move to another matter i'm advised that the house managers have no objection to the admission of evidence proposed to be admitted by the former president's counsel under the provisions of section 8 of senate resolution 47. and that the president's counsel have no objections to the evidence proposed to be admitted into evidence by the house managers, pursuant to section 8

of the resolution, as agreed to by leader mcconnell and myself a few days ago, both parties have made timely filings of this evidence with the secretary of the senate and have provided copies to each other. i therefore ask unanimous consent that the senate dispense with the provisions of section 8a of senate resolution 47 and that the materials submitted by both parties be admitted into evidence subject to the provision of section 8c of that resolution this provides the admission of this evidence does not constitute a concession by either party as to the truth of the matters asserted by the other party and that each senator shall decide for him or herself the weight to be given such evidence. this request has the approval of both parties and the republican leader. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 47, the senate has provided for up to four hours of closing arguments. they will be equally divided between the managers on the part of the house of representatives and the counsel for the former president. pursuant to rule 22 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate, when sitting on impeachment trials the arguments shall be open and closed on the part of the house of representatives. so the chair recognizes mr. manager raskin to begin the presentation on the part of the house of representatives. mr. raskin, under rule 22, you may reserve time if you wish. >> thank you, mr. president. members of the senate, before i

proceed, it was suggested by defense counsel that donald trump's conduct during the attack as described in congresswoman butler's statement is somehow not part of the constitutional offense for which former president trump has been charged. i want to reject that falsehood and that fallacy immediately. after he knew that violence was under way at the capitol president trump took actions that further incited the insurgents to be more inflamed and to take even more extreme selective and focused action against vice president mike pence. former president trump also, as described by congresswoman butler's notes, refused requests to publicly, immediately and forcefully call off the riots. and when he was told that the insurgents inside the capitol were trump supporters the

president said "well kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are." think about that for a second. this uncontradicted statement that has just been stipulated as part of the evidentiary record, the president said "well kevin, i guess these people," meaning the mobsters, the insurrectionists -- "are more upset about the election than you are." that conduct is obviously part and parcel of the constitutional offense that he was impeached for, namely incitement to insurrection, that is continuing incitement to the insurrection. the conduct described not only perpetuated his continuing offense, but also provides to us here today further decisive

evidence of his intent to incite the insurrection in the first place. when my opposing counsel says that you should ignore the president's a/ctions after the insurrection began that is plainly wrong and it, of course, reflects the fact that they have no defense to his outrageous, scandalous and unconstitutional conduct in the middle of a violent assault on the capitol that he incited. senators, think about it for a second. say you light a fire. and you're charged with arson. and the defense counsel says everything that i did after the fire started is irrelevant and the court would reject that immediately and say that's not true at all. it's extremely relevant to whether or not you committed the crime. if you run over and try to put out the flames, if you get lots of water and say, help, help, there's a fire, if you call for help, a court will infer that -- could infer that you didn't intend for the fire to be lit in

the first place. they would accept your defense, perhaps, that it was all an accident, accidents happen with fire. but if on the other hand when the fire erupts, you go and you pour more fuel on it, you stand by and you watch it, gleefully, any reasonable person will infer that you not only intended the fire to start, but that once it got started and began to spread, you intended to continue to keep the fire going. that's exactly where we are, my friends. of course your conduct, while a crime is ongoing, is relevant to your culpability. both to the continuation of the offense, but also directly relevant, directly illuminating to what your purpose was originally, what was your intent. and any court in the land would

laugh out any -- any would laugh out of court any criminal defendant who said what i did after i allegedly killed that person is irrelevant. to whether or not i intended to kill them. i mean, come on. donald trump's refusal not only to send help but also to continue to further incite the insurgents against his own vice president, his own vice president, provides further decisive evidence of both his intent to start this violent insurrection and his continued incitement once the attack had begun to override the capitol. all right. senators, that was in response to this new evidence evidentiary article that came in. but i -- in my closing i want to thank you for your remarkable attention and your seriousness of purpose befitting your office. we have offered you overwhelming

and irrefutable and certainly unrefuted evidence that former president trump incited this insurrection against us. to quote the statement representative liz cheney made in january, "on january 6th 2021 a violent mob attacked the united states capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. this insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our republic." she continued. representative cheney continued. "much more will become clear in coming days and week, but what we know now is enough. the president of the united states summoned this mob, assembled this mob, and lit the flame of this attack. everything that followed was his doing. none of this would have happened without the president. the president could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. he did not.

there has never been a greater betrayal by the president of the united states of his office, and of his oath to the constitution. i will vote to impeach the president." representative cheney was right, she based her vote on the facts, on the evidence, and on the constitution. in evidence, the video, documentary, eyewitnesses only grown stronger and stronger and more detailed, right up till today, right up to ten minutes ago over the course of this senate trial and i have no doubt that you all noticed that despite the various propaganda reels and so on, president trump's lawyers have said almost nothing to contest or overcome the actual evidence of the -- of former president trump's conduct that we presented. much less have they brought their client forward to tell us his side of the story.

we sent him a letter last week, which they rejected out of hand. the former president of the united states refused to come and tell us. and i ask any of you, if you were charged with inciting violent insurrection against our country and you were falsely accused would you come and testify? i know i would. i'd be there at 7:00 in the morning waiting for the doors to open. i'm sure that's true of 100 senators in this room. i hope it's true of 100 senators in this room. the senate was lectured several times yesterday about cancel culture. well, not even two weeks ago the president's most reliable supporters in the house -- i'm sorry, not the president, the former president's most reliable support ers in the house tried to cancel out representative cheney because of her courageous and patriotic defense of the republic and the truth and the constitution. they tried to strip her of her

leading role as chair of the house republican conference. i hope everybody takes a second to reflect on this. the conference rejected this plainly, retaliatory and cowardly attempt to punish her for telling the truth to her constituents and her country and voting for impeachment. who says you can't stand up against bullies? who says? in my mind liz cheney is a hero for standing up for the truth. and resisting this retaliatory cancel culture that she was subjected to but she beat them on a vote of 145-61. more than two to one vote. you know, ben franklin, a great champion in the enlightenment, an enemy of political fanaticism

and cowardice, once wrote this. i have observed that wrong is always growing more wrong until there is no bearing it anymore. and that right, however opposed, comes right at last. comes right at last. think about that. this is america. home of the brave. land of the free. the america of ben franklin who said if you make yourself a sheep the wolves will eat you. don't make yourself a sheep. the wolves will eat you. the america of thomas jefferson who said it at another difficult moment a little patience and we shall see the rain of witches pass over their spirits dissolve and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. the america of tom payne who said the mind once enlightened cannot again become dark. now we showed you hour after hour of realtime evidence demonstrating every step of donald trump's constitutional crime. we showed you how he indoctrinated the mob, how the election he lost by more than 7 million votes in 306 to 232 in the electoral college, which he had described as a landslide when he won by the exact same margin in 2016, was actually a landslide victory for him being stolen away by a bipartisan conspiracy and fraud and corruption. we showed you how 61 courts and 88 judges, federal, state, local, trial, appellate, from the low escorts in the land to

the united states supreme court across the street and eight federal judges he himself named to the bench, all found no basis in fact or law for his outlandish and deranged inventions and concoctions about the election. in the meantime president trump tried to bully state level officials to commit a fraud on the public by literally finding votes. we examined the case study of georgia. where he called to threaten to find him 11,780 votes. that's all he wanted, he said, 11,780 votes. don't we all? 11,780 votes, that's all he wanted to nullify biden's victory and to win the election. he ended up with savage death threats against his family, tel telling him he deserved a firing squad. another election urged trump to cut it out or people would get

hurt and killed, a prescient warning indeed. he supported donald trump, gave him money and now trump threw us under the bus. we saw what happened in lansing, michigan, with the extremist mob he cultivated with led to two shocking capitol sieges and a criminal conspiracy by extremists to kidnap and likely assassinate governor whitmer, trying to get state legislatures to disavow and overthrow their popular election results and replace them with trump electors, the process of summoning the mob, reaching out, urging people to come to washington for a wild time. as we celebrate president's day on monday, think, imagine, is there another president in our history who would urge supporters to come to washington for a wild time? you saw how he embraced violent extremist elements like the proud boys who were told in a nationally televised presidential candidate debate to

stand back and stand by, which became their official slogan as they converged on washington with other extremist and seditious groups and competed to be the lead storm troopers of the attack on this building. you saw the assembly of the mob on january 6th. and how beautiful that angry mob must have looked to donald trump as he peered down from the lectern with the seal of the president of the united states of america emblazened on it. that crowd was filled with extremists in tactical gear, armed to the teeth, and ready to fight, and other brawling maga supporters, all of them saying stop the steal right now. and he said he was going to march with them to the capitol, even though the permit for the rally specifically forbade a march. but he said he would march with them. giving them more comfort that what they were doing was legitimate. it was okay. but of course he stayed back as he presumably didn't want to be

too close to the action at the capitol as the lawyers called it, not an insurrection, they urged us yet, it's an action. he didn't want to be too close to the action when all hell was about to break loose. now, incitement, as we have discussed, requires an inherently fact based evidentiary inquiry and this is what we did. we gave you many hours of specific factual details about -- to use congresswoman cheney's words, how the president summoned the mob, assembled the mob, incited it, lit the match, sending them off to the capitol where they thought, as they yelled out, that they'd been invited by the president of the united states. and then of course they unleashed unparalleled violence against our overwhelmed and besieged but heroic police officers who you thoughtfully honored yesterday when the

officers got in their way as they entered the capitol at the behest of the president of the united states to stop the steal. now i'm convinced most senators must be convinced by this overwhelming and specific detail because most americans are but say you still have your doubts, you think the president really thought that he was sending his followers to participate in a peaceful, non-violent rally. the kind that might have been organized by julian bond, who my distinguished opposing counsel brought up, ella baker, bob moses, our late beloved colleague john lewis, for the student non-violent coordinating committee. maybe the president really thought this was going to be like the march on washington, organized by bayard ruston, and dr. martin luther king saying nonviolence the answer to the moral questions of our time. let's say you're still flirting with the requested that donald trump's conduct was totally appropriate as he proclaimed right off the bat and he's the

innocent victim of a mass accident, orca thatcatastrophe a fire or flood as we were invited to frame it on opening day by opposing counsel. you think maybe we're just looking for somebody to blame for this nightmare and catastrophe that's befallen the republic, we're just looking for someone to blame. here's the key question in resolving your doubts. how did donald trump react when he learned of the violent storming of the capitol, and the threats to senators, members of the house, and his own vice president as well as the images he saw on tv of the pummelling and beating and harassment of our police officers. did he spring into action to stop the violence? and save us? did he even wonder about his own security, since an out of control anti-government mob could come after him too.

did he quickly try to get in touch with, or denounce the proud boys, the oath keepers, the rally organizers, the save the -- save america rally organizers, and everyone on the extreme right to tell them that this was not what he had in mind, it's a big mistake, call it off, call it off, call it off as representative gallagher begged him to do on national television, no. he delighted in it. he revelled in it. he exulted in it. he could not understand why the people around him tidd not share his delight. and then a long period of silence ensued while the mob beat the daylights out of police officers and invaded this building as you saw on security footage and proceeded to hunt down vice president mike pence as a traitor, and denounced and cursed speaker pelosi, both of whom you heard mob members say they wanted to kill. they were both in real danger. and our government could have been thrown into absolute

turmoil without the heroism of our officers and the bravery and courage of a lot of people in this room. here's what republican representative anthony gonzales of ohio said, a former pro-football player, we are imploring the president to help, to stand up, to help defend the united states capitol, the united states congress, which is under attack, we are begging essentially, and he was nowhere to be found, nowhere to be found. and as i've emphasized this morning, that dereliction of duty, that desertion of duty was central to his incitement of insurrection, and inextricable from it, inextricable. bound together. it reveals his state of mind that day. what he was thinking as he provoked the mob to violence. and further violence, it shows how he perpetuated his continuing offense on january 6th. his course of conduct charged in

the article of impeachment as he further incited the mob during the attack, aiming it at vice president mike pence himself while failing to quell it in either of his roles as commander in chief, or his real role that day, inciter in chief. and it powerfully demonstrates that the ex-president knew of course that violence was foreseeable, that it was predictable, and predicted. that day, since he was not surprised, and not horrified, no, he was delighted, and through his acts of omission and commission that day he abused his office by siding with the insurrectionists at almost every point, rather than with the congress of the united states. rather than with the constitution. in just a moment my colleague mr. cicilline will address president trump's conduct, his actions and inactions, his culpable state of mind during

the attack, as he will establish yesterday's explosive revelations about house minority leader kevin mccarthy's desperate call to trump and trump's truly astounding reaction confirm that trump was doing nothing to help the people in this room or this building, it's now clear beyond doubt that trump supported the actions of the mob. and so he must be convicted. it's that simple. when he took the stage on january 6th he knew exactly how combustible the situation was. he knew there were many people in the crowd who were ready to jump into action to engage in violence at any signal that he needed them to fight like hell, to stop the steal and that's exactly what he told them to do and then he aimed them straight here, right down pennsylvania to the capitol, where he told them the steal was occurring, the counting of the electoral college votes and we all know what happened next, they attacked this building, they disrupted the peaceful transfer of power, they injured and killed people, convinced that they were acting on his

instructions, and with his approval, and protection. and while that happened, he further incited them, while failing to defend us. if that's not ground for conviction, if that's not a high crime and misdemeanor against the republic in the united states of america then nothing is. president trump must be convicted for the safety and security of our democracy and our people. mr. cicilline. >> mr. president, distinguished senators, as we've demonstrated there is overwhelming evidence that president trump incited the violence, and knew violence was foreseeable on january 6th. he knew that many in the crowd were posed for violence at his

urging. and, in fact, many in the sea of thousands in the crowd were wearing body armor and helmets and holding sticks and flag poles. and then he not only provoked that very same crowd, but aimed them at the capitol. he literally pointed at this building, at us, during his speech. he pointed to the building where congress was going to certify the election results and where he knew the vice president himself was presiding over the process. no one is suggesting that president trump intended every detail of what happened on january 6th. but when he directed the sea of thousands before him, who were reportedly ready to engage in real violence, when he told that crowd to fight like hell, he incited violence targeted at the capitol, and he most certainly foresaw it. my colleague manager gene will stand up and walk you through the overwhelming evidence that

supports those claims. i want to start by talking about what happened after that. there was a lot of discussion yesterday about what the president knew and when he knew it. there are certain things we do not know about what the president did that day. former president trump has remained silent what he was doing during one of the bloodiest attacks on our capitol since 1812. despite a full and fair opportunity to come forward he's refused to come and tell his story. as manager raskin said we would all do that. in fact, i would insist on it. if i were accused of a grave and serious crime that i was innocent of i would demand the right to tell me side of the story. president trump declined. but there are certain facts that undisputed, that we know to be true, despite the president's refusal to testify. which his counsel either ignored entirely or didn't and couldn't

dispute. before i go to those facts, let me quickly just touch on a few things. first, president trump and his counsel have resorted to arguments that the evidence presented was somehow manufactured or hidden from them. i want to be very clear about this because this is important. in terms of the timing of when they received materials here, defense counsel had access to all materials when they were entitled to have them under senate resolution 47. and they cannot and have not alleged otherwise. as to their desperate claim that evidence was somehow manufactured, they have not alleged that one tweet from their client was actually inaccurate, nor can they. we got those tweets, which are, of course, statements from the former president from a public archive, and they are all correct. you also note the president has claims about evidence being manipulated, also untrue because

they didn't even object to the introduction of the evidence when they had the opportunity to do so. so i hope we can now set those issues aside and turn to the facts of this case. and really set the record straight about the undisputed facts in this case about what the president knew that day, and when he knew it. at the outset let me say this, as you may recall in direct response to a question yesterday, president trump's counsel stated, and i quote, at no point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger, end quote. as we walk through these undisputed facts you will see quite clearly that is simply not true. as you can see here from just after 12:00 p.m. to just before 2:00 p.m. president trump delivered his statements at the rally. which incited an initial wave of protesters coming down to the capitol. and his speech was still ongoing. and you saw the evidence of people broadcasting that on

their phones. he finishes his speech about 1:11 p.m. at which point a much larger wave surged toward us here at the capitol. ripping down scaffolding, and triggering calls for law enforcement assistance. 30 minutes later, at 1:49 p.m., as the violence intensified, president trump tweeted a video of his remarks at the rally with the caption "our country has had enough, we will not take it anymore, and that's what this is all about." during the half hour following that tweet the situation here drastically deteriorated. insurrectionists breached the capitol barriers, the steps and the complex itself. by 2:12 the insurrectionist mob had overwhelmed the police, and started their violent attack on the capitol. as you all know this attack occurred and played out on live

television. every major network was showing it. we've shown you during the course of this trial side by side exactly what the president would have seen on tv or his twitter account. we've also shown you he would have seen around 2:12 p.m. images of vice president pence being rushed off the senate floor. i won't replay all of that for you but for timing purposes, here's the footage reacting to vice president pence leaving the floor. >> no audio. they just cut out -- sometimes the senate -- >> it seemed like they ushered vice president pence out really quickly. >> they ushered him out, moved him fast. i saw the motions too. >> defense counsel seems to suggest that somehow the president of the united states was not aware of this. that the president had no idea that his vice president had been evacuated from the senate floor for his safety because violent rioters had broken into the

capitol with thousands more coming and with the capitol police completely overwhelmed. this was on live television. so defense counsel is suggesting that the president of the united states knew less about this than the american people. this is just not possible. that the secret service failed to mention that his vice president was being rushed from the senate for his own protection, but nobody in the white house thought to alert him. that none of our law enforcement agencies raised a concern to the commander in chief that the vice president was being evacuated from the senate floor as a violent mob assaulted the capitol. that simply cannot be. and with each passing minute on the timeline of events on january 6th, it grows more and more inconceivable. let's continue forward in time. between 2:12 to 2:24 the senate recessed, speaker nancy pelosi

was ushered off the floor. the capitol police announced a breach and a lockdown, and the insurrectionist mob began chanting "hang mike pence." and it was unfolding on live tv. in front of the entire world. so, again, let me ask you, does it strike you as credible that nobody, not a single person informed the president that his vice president had been evacuated. or that the president didn't glance at the television or his twitter account, and learn about the events that were happening. remember, this was the day of the electoral college, remember, his obsession with stopping the certification. it's just not credible. that the president at no point knew his vice president was in this building, and was in real danger. senators, i submit to you these facts, this timeline is undisputed. at 2:24 p.m. after rioters

breached the barriers, after calls for assistance, after rioters stormed the building, after vice president pence was rushed from the senate floor, and just before vice president pence was further evacuated for his safety, president trump decided to attack his own vice president on twitter. the undisputed facts confirm that not only must president trump have been aware of the vice president's danger but he still sent out a tweet attacking him. further inciting the very mob that was in just a few feet of him inside of this very building. the vice president was there with his family, he was in danger for his life. they were chanting hang mike pence and had erected a noose outside. and as we've shown the mob responded to president trump's attack instantly. the tweet was read aloud on a bull horn, if you remember that video, insurrectionists began

chanting again about mike pence. and in those critical moments, we see president trump engaging in a dereliction of his duty. by further inciting the mob in realtime, to target the vice president, with knowledge that the insurrection was ongoing, and that's, of course, included in the conduct charged in this article of impeachment. the former president's counsel's suggestion otherwise is completely wrong. his further incitement is impeachable conduct that continued during the course of this assault itself and it's part of a constitutional crime and was entirely and completely a part of his indefensible failure to protect the congress. now, there's been some confusion as to the phone call i referenced with senator lee. so i want to be clear about certain facts that are not in

dispute. first, senator lee has confirmed that the call occurred at 2:26 p.m. so i've added that to the timeline above. remember, by this phone call the vice president has just been evacuated on live television for his own safety. and donald trump had after that, tweeted an attack on him, which the insurgents read on a bull horn, and a few minutes after donald trump's tweet he didn't reach out to check on the vice president's safety. he called a senator to ask about delaying the certification. the call was interrupted. the senator tuberville has since explained, i looked at the phone, it said the white house on it, i said hello, the president said a few words, i said, mr. president, they're taking the vice president out and they want me to get off the phone and i've got to go. end quote. that was his second evacuation that day, a minute later live

feeds documented the insurgents chanting mike pence is a traitor. at this point even if somehow he'd missed it earlier it's inconceivable that the president, the former president was unaware that the vice president was in danger. and what does the president do after hearing that? does he rush to secure the capitol? does he do anything to quell the mob? does he call his vice president to check on his safety? we all know the answer to those questions too. there can be no dispute. he took none of those steps, not a single one. even after learning that s senators were being evacit

waited, he did nothing to help the vice president. and here's some more evidence that we've since learned, at some point over the following 30 minutes president trump spoke to minority leader kevin mccarthy. and as representative jamie herrera butler has revealed evidence that now has been stipulated as part of the evidentiary record, this that conversation kevin mccarthy is pleading with the former president to do something. he first tries to assign the blame to another group and leader mccarthy says no, these are your supporters, mr. president, and what does the president say in response? not send people right away, i didn't realize you were in danger, he says, well kevin, and i quote, i quote, "well kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are." i guess these people are more upset about the election than

you are. the president just said he conveyed in that tweet at 6:01 was essentially saying you got what you deserve. let me say that again. not only was the president fully aware of the vice president's situation, in a situation we were all in when he was asked for help, when he was asked to defend the capitol less than 30 minutes after inciting this violence against his own vice president, president trump refused that request for assistance, and he told us why. his singular focus, stopping the certification or the election of his opponent, he incited the violence to stop the certification, he attacked the vice president, and further incited the insurrection, to pressure the vice president to stop the certification. he called senator tuberville to stop the certification. and he refused to send help to congress.

when this congress and the vice president of the united states were in mortal danger because he wanted to stop the certification. and he did these things attacking the vice president, calling senator tuberville, refusing representative mccarthy's request with full knowledge of the violent attack that was under way at that point. he chose retaining his own power over the safety of americans. i can't imagine more damning evidence of his state of mind. the call ended with a screaming match interrupted by violentryioters breaking through the windows of representative mccarthy's office. senators, the president knew this was happening. he didn't do anything to help his vice president or any of you or any of the brave officers and other employees serving the american people that day. his sole focus was stealing the

election for himself. and he apparently has still not thought of anyone else. according to more new facts revealed last night the vice president's team does not agree with the president's counsel, or the president's counsel assessment either, pence and his team does not agree with the trump lawyers assessment that trump was concerned about pence's safety. trump didn't call him that day or for five days after that. no one else on trump's team called as pence was evacuated to one room with a screaming mob nearby. >> objection, this is not in evidence. objection, this is not in evidence. if you wanted to stipulate to this -- >> the counsel will sit down. >> senators, remember -- >> the chair has no way of knowing what's in evidence or

not. the counsel for the president will have a chance to speak. and the chair will consider the issue. >> senators, remember as one of you said during this attack, they could have killed us all. our staff, the officers protecting all of us, everyone. and president trump not only incited it, but continued inciting it as it occurred with attacks on his vice president, and then willfully refused to defend us, furthering his provocation and incitement by the mob, siding with the mob, siding with the violent insurrectionists, sworn to protect us because they were "more upset about the election than leader mccarthy." those facts are undisputed.

president trump has not offered any evidence or any argument to disprove them. his lawyers almost entirely ignored these facts in their short presentation. we have only his counsel's false claim yesterday that, "at no point was the president informed that the vice president was in any danger," a claim that is refuted not just by common sense but by the timeline you have seen, and also the vice president's legal team. so there can be no doubt that at the moment we most needed a president to preserve, protect and defend us, president trump instead willfully betrayed us. he violated his oath. he left all of us and officers like eugene goodman to our own devices against an attack he had incited and he alone could stop. that is why he must be convicted. i'd like to conclude by making one final point, that follows from directly from what i just

discussed. our case, and the article of impeachment before you, absolutely includes president trump's dereliction of duty on january 6th. his failure as inciter in chief to immediately quell or call off the mob, his failure as commander in chief to immediately do everything in his power to secure the capitol, that is a further basis on which to convict, and there can be no doubt of that. the ongoing constitutional misconduct is like any continuing offense in the proof of that is overwhelming. most directly his dereliction of duty offers conclusive, irrefutable evidence that he acted willfully as we charge. he wasn't furious. or sad. or shocked like virtually everyone else in america. he was reported by those around him as delighted. rather than rush to our aid, or demand his mob retreat, he watched the attack on tv, and

praised the mob to leader mccarthy as more loyal to him, more upset about the election and that was all that mattered. his reaction is also further evidence of his intent. he acted exactly the way a person would act if they had indeed incited the mob to violence to stop the steal. more overas i've shown president trump's dereliction and desertion of duty includes his decision to further incite the mob, even as he failed to protect us. well, the mob hunted vice president pence in these very halls, he attacked vice president pence while he tried to stop the steal he spread the big lie, we all saw how his mob responded in realtime. this further incitement was part of his dereliction of duty, was also part of his course of conduct, encouraging and provoking the mob to violence.

president trump's dereliction of duty also highlights how foreseeable the attack was to him, in his tweet just after 6:00 p.m. he said, and i quote, these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is to unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. this tweet continued his endorsement of the attack, his failure to condemn it, his desertion of duty. but it also reveals his view that this was, of course, what would happen when congress refused his demand to reject the election, that he continued to tell his supporters was stolen and we had actually won in a landslide. again, he wasn't surprised. you saw this as a predictable result of his repeated demands his followers stop the steal by any means possible. this was all connected. his dereliction of duty.

his desertion of duty was part and parcel of the crime charged in the impeachment. and it's certainly a basis on which to vote for conviction. if you believe that he willfully refused to defend us and the law enforcement officers fighting to save us, and if he was delighted by the attack, and that he saw it as a natural result of his call to stop the steal, and that he continued to incite and target violence as the attack unfolded, we respectfully submit you must vote to convict and disqualify so that the events of january 6th can never happen again in this country. >> mr. president. >> i'd like to call up ms. dean. >> mr. president, i've got a point of order. mr. president, moments ago house manager cicilline --

>> the senator will withhold, you're advised by the parliamentarian that debate is not in order. >> debate is not in order because this is not debate. he said something that's not true. >> the quorum has been suggested -- >> it's clearly a quorum, sir. >> and the clerk will call the roll. >> ms. baldwin. >> consent to suspend the quorum call. >> is there objection? objection is served.

>> mr. barrasso. mr. bennett. >> we're standing by to hear from madeleine dean, one of the house impeachment managers, we heard from jamie raskin, the lead house impeachment manager david cicilline, now madeleine dean. but the senator complained there was a factual misstatement in the course of congressman cicilline's statement and he wanted to interrupt and explain, but clearly that goes against the rules. so now they've got this quorum call right now to discuss what's going on. >> he tried to raise a point of order, and now they're going to have the quorum call again as they turn the microphones off so they can figure out how to proceed. to decide whether that's in ord. earlier in the trial senator lee was mad his name was mentioned about him handing the phone to senator tuberville.

he later released the phone records, gave them to the managers and to the trump defense team and congressman cicilline put that in the timeline, showing the correct time the phone call was after the president sent a tweet. >> two or three minutes after. >> but congressman sitcicilline showed it made the -- to the threat the vice president was facing in the united states capitol. senator lee wanted to object to congressman cicilline's characterization for one reason or another. we don't know the specifics because he was cut off. what you've seen here now is twice, first senator lee and then one of the trump attorneys standing up and objecting, essentially trying to disrupt the rhythm of the democrats' closing statements and we'll see the legitimacy of the point senator lee is trying to make or whether he gets to make it. the bigger point here is, after a vote to proceed with witnesses, pressure came on the house managers from the senate democratic leadership. they backed off and cut a deal on stipulating to one piece of

testimony, a statement from a republican congresswoman and now we're moving forward with the closing arguments, wolf and the conclusion of this trial, by this evening and it will be interesting to see what the ultimate ruling is as to whether senator lee gets to lodge his objection. >> let's bring in manu raju who's there up on capitol hill watching all of this. john is absolutely right, the big picture was, they voted earlier in the day for witnesses, then there was this long delay and all of a sudden they decided, you know what, there aren't going to be any witnesses and both sides can begin their closing arguments. the house impeachment managers, they've now spent, by my count, 44 minutes of their two hours delivering some of their closing arguments. they have up to two hours to do so. but it's been interrupted by senator lee who's complaining about a statement that congressman cicilline made. >> and he's not allowed to just simply object under the rules of the senate, they're sitting in a court of impeachment. that's why we have not heard senators from either side debate. they have to sit there quietly.

they have to actually listen to the proceedings. and oftentimes they're not in their chairs listening, but they're supposed to be listening and they're certainly not allowed to debate. there needs to be some sort of agreement to do just that. so that's what senator leahy just did. he sent the proceedings into a bit of a delay so they can work out this dispute. because senator lee can't just get up and just start talking. we'll see how they ultimately resolve this. probably they'll figure out some way he doesn't like how he was referenced in the congressman cicilline's arguments just now, his closing arguments. but wolf, it is just remarkable how topsy turvy this day has been. so far. democrats came in to the senate side, the jurors in this trial, the democrats were close allies with these house democratic managers, they had no clue what was coming into their lap at 10:00 a.m. conference call at 9:00 a.m. this morning, not thinking there was going to be witnesses

called. they didn't know for sure. suddenly the house democrats at 10:00 a.m. dropped in and said they wanted to move forward and bring forward congressman jamie herrera butler, have her testify on -- to say what she heard about that phone call between kevin mccarthy, the house republican leader, and donald trump on the day of the january 6th riot and how donald trump did not have any interest in dealing with all the violence that was happening at the hands of his supporters. they -- that caused a bit of a -- quite a commotion for several hours behind the scenes, negotiations between both sides to try to cut a deal. democratic senators were not that keen on moving forward on witnesses. they said they have essentially heard enough here, republican senators were saying their minds would not be changed and in what was a key calculation here, that forced them ultimately to decide to back down in moving forward on witnesses was the likelihood that if they did go forward the trial could have gone on for an indefinite period of time. it would hang over the senate,

there would be potentially an equal number of witnesses on one side, democrats may have one or two, trump team may have one or two and it could just go on and on and on and that was a real concern, especially as they're trying to get a covid relief deal done by the end of the month. they need to get consent to have other nominees confirmed at a key time. such as merrick garland who is nominated to be the attorney general. the way the senate operates is that you need to have unanimous consent, all 100 senators to schedule votes. if there's not an agreement the senator majority leader has to take procedural steps to get a vote on the floor. those procedural steps can take days and days and days and that's something the democrats did not want to have to deal with because it would be harder to get that cooperation with this trial hanging ore, with republicans threatening to derail all senate business if the trial were to continue. they had been threatening that for some time. so all of that calculated into the decision here. cut a deal. get jamie herrera butler's

statement into the record, let's not move forward with witnesses. let's go towards the end of this trial because all indications were no matter -- if they had any witness testimony at the end of the day donald trump would be acquitted because republicans just simply say they don't believe this trial should go forward on constitutional grounds, wolf. >> i want to be precise in this, manu, you understand the rules of the senate as far as this impeachment trial is concerned. we've heard maybe 45 minutes of the two hours the house impeachment managers have for their closing arguments. we can hear as much as two hours from the trump lawyers, although they're suggesting they may not even speak for one hour. but after that, before the final vote senators could demand that they have an opportunity to speak on the senate floor as well, although they could delay that until after the vote. walk us through that because maybe mike lee will be able to say something even before the vote. >> yeah, that is very possible. there would have an agreement to actually have those speeches on the floor. and because as i mentioned everything in the senate

requires so-called unanimous consent, all 100 senators have to agree to do something. so one senator could object. there could try to be an agreement to allow mike lee or this senator or that senator to speak on the floor but all 100 senators would have to agree to do that. if one senator objects that won't happen. if there's no agreement to have senators actually speak they would move directly to a vote on whether or not to convict or acquit donald trump. so it could happen pretty soon after closing arguments. this is different than the 2020 impeachment trial as you'll recall, wolf, there were several days of floor speeches that democratic and republican senators wanted to give to explain why they were voting to conviction or why they were voting to acquit. this time around it is much different. in talking to senators last several days, regularly, through the course of the day, on both sides, there's not really much of an appetite for most senators to go to the floor and express their views. some believe it's pretty clear. others are simply tired.

republicans don't want to necessarily say why they're voting to acquit donald trump when it's -- the evidence is quite clear about what happened in the run-up to january 6th. and rather be done with this trial and also, wolf, there's a week long recess coming up in the senate starting monday, president's day recess, don't forget the power of jet fumes if you will. a lot of the senator's cars are actually outside the senate chamber right now waiting to whisk them away to the airport soon after the conviction vote. i expect that once donald trump is acquitted this afternoon it will move pretty quickly. some senators may go to the floor and speak. we heard that senator minority leader mitch mcconnell will speak at some point after the proceedings, after the final vote, which we're hearing from our sources, is to acquit donald trump. >> if the trump lawyers spend about an hour with their closing arguments, and the democrats, the impeachment managers, still

have more than an hour left. we're talking about a vote in the 4:00 eastern hour, another couple hours or so from now. they might be able to wrap it up by then. but as you and i well know, having both covered the senate for a long time, john king is with us as well, you never know what's going to happen on the floor of the u.s. senate. there could be some changes, some more quorum calls as they say which could delay this process even further. stand by, manu, i want to get john king to weigh in. i guess the only question now is, will there be 54, 55, 56 votes in favor of conviction? you need 67. he's going to be acquitted. or do you think there could be a different outcome? >> you always think you want to have an open mind, that these senators took an oath, all of them, democrats and republicans. they took an oath to be impartial jurors. you always want to think, let's have an open mind but we also know the math, we knew it coming in and we've watched the things play out during the trial both in the questions senators had the opportunity to ask questions and what they have said every day on the way in and the way out.

the universe is pretty clear and made even more clear this morning of the second most interesting thing that happened today now is mitch mcconnell making clear he was going to vote to acquit. a signal to fellow republicans. had he voted to it means he will have followers there as well. i'm looking back at to see if they've made any progress, senator leahy is at the chair getting advice. the question is will it be four, five, or six republicans joining in, and you would need 17 to convict donald trump, so that looks inevitable at this point. i will just add the caveat that we've seen a couple of unpredictable twists so far today. i don't anticipate that we'll see any more except for these procedural hiccups. but that's why we watch. >> we'll see what happens. i think they're getting closer and closer. dana, you had some excellent reporting earlier, you were one of the first if not the first to report that they were trying to work out a deal to make the

democrats' call for witnesses to go away in order to allow this process to continue. i just want to congratulate you on your excellent reporting. >> thanks. we did break that story, and we're watching as you are to see if they resolve this procedural hiccup that's going on as they wind down this trial, head through their concluding arguments to a vote. i want to talk to abby and david while we watch that happening, about the fallout that could happen, not procedural, not legal, but the political fallout and ramifications for the senate democrats, for looking, from the perspective of some progressives, like they caved. >> yeah, i think the big question here is, is this sort of the twitter universe of liberal democrats that are -- >> sorry, david. >> we're going back to the trial. >> mr. president.

>> majority leader. >> i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. >> i withdraw my appeal. >> the appeal is withdrawn. the chair would advise everybody, the evidentiary record is closed. s. res 47 describes the scope of things not admitted into evidence as those referenced in trial. new evidence is not permitted in closing argument. references to such new evidence will be stricken . the house managers have the floor if they wish to resume.

house managers. >> mr. president. >> house manager. >> esteemed senators. good afternoon. we are grateful for your kind attention this week as we engaged in a process formulated and put to paper by the founders in my home city of philadelphia which is getting its fair share of attention this week, in 1787, 234 years ago. my colleague mr. cicilline addressed the importance of the president's dereliction of duty. i will focus on three specific aspects of this case which the defense have raised questions about. first, the defense suggests that this was just one speech and one

speech cannot incite insurrection. and the defense suggested, because the attack was preplanned by some insurrectionists, donald trump is somehow not culpable. both of these things are plainly not true. nor are they what we allege. so let's be clear. we are not suggesting that donald trump's january 6th speech by itself incited the attack. we have shown that his course of conduct leading up to and including that speech incited the attack. the defense is correct that the insurrection was preplanned. that supports our point. we argued, and the evidence overwhelmingly confirms, that donald trump's conduct over many months incited his supporters to bel believe, one, his big lie that the only way he could lose was if the election was rigged.

two, that to ensure the election would not be stolen, to prevent the fraud, they had to stop the steal. and three, they had to fight to stop the steal or they would not have a country anymore. this conduct took time and it culminated in donald trump sending a save the date on december the 19th, 18 days before the attack, telling his base exactly when, where, and who to fight. and while he was doing this, he spent $50 million from his legal defense fund to simultaneously broadcast his message to stop the steal over all major networks. donald trump invited them. he incited them. then he directed them. here are a few clips that will help bring that story to light. >> can you give a direct answer,

you will accept the election? >> i have to see. i'm not going to just say yes. this election will be the most rigged election in history. this is going to be the greatest election disaster in history. the only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election. we're going to win this election. it's a rigged election. it's the only way we're going to lose. >> do you commit to making sure there's a peaceful transferal of power? >> get rid of the ballots and we'll have a very peaceful -- there won't be a transfer, frankly, there will be a continuation. it's only way we're going to lose is if there's, uh, mischief, mischief. and it will have to be on a big scale. so be careful. but this will be one of the greatest fraudulent, most fraudulent elections ever. we're not going to let this election be taken away from us. that's the only way they're going to win it. this is a fraud on the american public.

this is an embarrassment to our country. we were getting ready to win this election. frankly, we did win this election. we were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually. and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret and this is a case where they're trying to steal an election. they're trying to rig an election. and we can't let that happen. you can't let another person steal that election from you. all over the country, people are together in holding up signs, stop the steal. if we don't root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that's taken place in our 2020 election, we don't have a country anymore. we cannot allow a completely fraudulent election to stand. we're going to fight like hell, i'll tell you right now. if you don't fight to save your country with everything you have, you're not going to have a country left.

we will not bend. we will not break. we will not yield. we will never give in. we will never give up. we will never back down. we will never, ever surrender. all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. we will never give up. we will never concede. it doesn't happen. you don't concede when there's theft involved. and to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. because you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength. and you have to be strong. make no mistake. this election was stolen from you, from me, from the country. and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> our point is this. this was not one speech. this was a deliberate,

purppurpose ful effort by donald trump over many months that resulted in the well-organized mob's attack on january the 6th. that brings me to my second point. the violence. defense counsel argues that there is no way that donald trump could have known what would happen. yet we are not suggesting, nor is it necessary for us to prove, that donald trump knew every detail of what would unfold on january the 6th or even how horrible and deadly the attack would become. but he did know. as he looked out on that sea of thousands in front of him, some wearing body armor and helmets, others carrying weapons, that the result would be violence. the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates this. a few points on this.

donald trump knew the people he was inciting leading up to january the 6th. he saw the violence they were capable of. he had a pattern and practice of praising and encouraging supporters of violence, never condemning it. it is not a coincidence that those same people, the proud boys, the organizer of the trump caravan, the supporters and speakers at the second million maga march, all showed up on january the 6th. and donald trump's behavior was different. this was not just in a comment by an official or a politician fighting for a cause. this was months of cultivating a base of people who were violent, praising that violence and then leading them, leading that violence, that rage, straight to a joint session of congress where he knew his vice president was presiding. and donald trump had warnings about the crowd in front of him on january 6th.

there were details posts online of attack plans. law enforcement warned that these posts were real threats and even made arrests in the days leading up to the attack. there were credible reports that many would be around and ready to attack the capitol. despite these credible warnings of serious dangerous threats to our capitol, when the crowd was standing in front of the president, ready to take orders and attack, he said we're going to the capitol and we fight, we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. here is a short clip. >> what do you want to call them? give me a name. >> white supremacists. >> proud boys. >> proud boys? stand back and stand by. >> welcome to the -- ♪ red kingdom ♪ >> you see the way our people,

you know, they were protecting his bus yesterday because they're nice. they had hundreds of cars, trump, trump, trump. and the american flag. you see trump and american flag. >> and the first million maga march, we promise that if the gop would not do everything in their power to keep trump in office, that we would destroy the gop. [ cheering ] and as we gather here in washington, d.c. for a second million maga march, we're done making promises. it has to happen now. we are going to destroy the gop! [ cheering ] [ crowd chanting "destroy the gop" ] >> because you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and you have to be strong.

>> senators, the violence on january the 6th was done in st demonstrably foreseeable. trump even said so himself, the last thing he said before he went to sleep, quote, these are the things that happen, end quote. he foresaw this and he admitted as much. that brings me to my final point. the insurrectionists. defense counsel has suggested these people came here on their own. the defense brief states that the insurrectionists, quote, did so for their own accord and for their own reasons and are being criminally prosecuted. it is true that some insurrectionists are being prosecuted. but it is not true that they did so of their own accord and for their own reasons. the evidence makes clear the

exact opposite, that they did this for donald trump at his invitation, at his direction, at his command. they said this before the attack, during the attack. they said it after the attack. leading up to january the 6th in post after post, the president's supporters confirmed, this was for donald trump. it was at his direction. one supporter wrote, and i quote, if congress illegally certifies biden, trump would have absolutely no choice but to demand us to storm the capitol and kill/beat them up for it. they even say publicly, openly, and proudly, that president trump would help them commandeer the national guard so all they have to do is overwhelm 2,000 capitol police officers. during his speech on january the 6th, trump supporters chanted his words back to him. they even live tweeted his

commands, as ms. degette told you. the insurrectionists at the capitol chanted donald trump's words from his tweets, rallies, and from the speech of the 6th. they held signs and said, and chanted, fight for trump, stop the steal. they read his tweets over bullhorns, amplifying his demands. another rioter, while live streaming the insurrection from the capitol, said, quote, he'll be happy, we're fighting for trump. what's more, the insurrectionists were not hiding. they believed they were following the orders from our commander in chief. they felt secure enough in the legitimacy of their actions to take selfies, to post photos and videos on social media. after the attack, rioter after rioter confirmed this too. jenna ryan, later accused for her role in the insurrection, said, quote, i thought i was

following my president. i thought we were following what we were called to do. and president trump requested that we be in d.c. on the 6th. when it became clear that donald trump would not protect them, some of his supporters said they felt duped. they felt tricked. listen to some of this evidence. >> even if they think for a second that they're going to get away with it today, they got another think coming. because today is just a day. and today is just the beginning. they haven't seen a resistance until they have seen a patriot fight for their country. >> if you died today --

>> parties will withhold. the parties will withhold. >> it is in the record. >> the evidentiary record is closed. s. res 47 describes the scope of those things admitted into evidence as those referenced in trial. new evidence is not permitted in closing argument. references to such new evidence will be stricken. who yields time? >> mr. president, the statement was in evidence. the slide was not, so we will withdraw the slide. the statement was in evidence. they told you themselves, they were following the president's orders. and you'll see something

clearly. donald trump knew who these people were. as the slide shows, the people he cultivated, whose violence he praised, were all there on january the 6th. the proud boys who donald trump told to stand back and stand by in september of 2020. keith lee, organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off the road. katrina pierson, the speaker at the second million maga march. they were all there.

the video you're about to see is in the record. oh, correction, the record did include, appropriately, the last video. so we will keep that in the record and i will keep it in my closing remarks. can we play the next video ? >> all right.

what they're trying to figure out, john, was the cakatrina pierson sound bite we heard from that rally, was it played earlier? if it was not played earlier, it was not in the record and as a result, they've got a problem. >> yes, you're not supposed to use any new evidence in the closing arguments. it's possible, madeleine dean said it was in the record. they're trying to figure out if it's evidence that is agreed to by both sides that they have shared. you don't have to play all the evidence that you put into the record for senators to review. but normally you put testimony in a trial, you would have heard it or seen it. so this is one of the disputes, and it's now happened twice, where the trump team has stood up to object. >> and what clearly they're pointing out is in the closing arguments that the house impeachment managers are now making, they can't introduce, quote, new evidence. they can only refer to what they made in their initial presentation.

>> right. and you see the lawyers, potentially sidebar, if you watch tv court shows, in this case they're talking to senator leahy and his staff, who are the p parliamentary rule makers here, about the evidence. the house managers had presented a strong and compelling case and worked well together as a team. they're clearly having some hiccups, some issues here as they try to close, a very important part of your case is closing your case, and they're having problems as they go forward, disputes over whether some of the material they've used, whether they're trying to bring new evidence into the proceedings in a closing statement, which is against the rules of this particular proceeding. >> and as we were watching that katrina pierson clip, katrina pierson being an official spokesperson for the trump campaign, when she was getting that crowd going over there, as we were watching it, you and i both pointed out, at least i

said, i don't remember that katrina pierson clip that we saw originally in their original presentation, and i think you agreed with me. >> i don't recall it being played earlier in the trial. i think that was clear, that it was not played. i think the democrats have now c conceded it was not played previously. somebody on the democratic side was trying to make the case that it was in the record, meaning it was in the package of evidence that the two sides have shared going into the trial here. but again, smooth presentation from the democrats in prosecuting their case, winning a vote for witnesses and then pulling back on that, and now some interruptions during their closing arguments. if you're going to change minds, this is when you would do it, at the end of your case. here we go. >> she's getting ready. this is madeleine dean, the congresswoman from pennsylvania. maybe not.

it looks like they're still trying to figure this out, john. we should be getting back to these closing arguments. she's been speaking, by my count, for about, what, 20 minutes or so. the other two house impeachment managers that have already spoken, the lead impeachment manager, jamie raskin, spoke for 22 minutes in his argument. >> senators will take their seats. the senate will be in order. the representative may continue. >> thank you, mr. president. i have to say, of all the trials i have ever been a part of, this

is certainly one of them. [ laughter ] as the slides show, the people he cultivated, whose violence he praised, were all there on january the 6th. the proud boys, who donald trump told to stand back and stand by in september of 2020, keith lee, the organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off the road, katrina pierson, the speaker at the second million maga march, they were all there. here is one final clip, also submitted in the record. >> we need to have 30,000 guns. >> senators, some of the insurrectionists are facing criminal charges. donald trump was acting as our commander in chief. he was our president. he used his office and the authority it commands to incite an attack. and when congress and the

constitution were under attack, he abandoned his duties, violated his oath, failing to preserve, protect, and defend. that is why we are here, because the president of the united states, donald j. trump, incited and directed thousands of people to attack the legislative branch. he knew what his supporters were capable of. he inflamed them, sent them down pennsylvania avenue, not on any old day, but on the day we were certifying the election results, as they were banging on our doors, he failed to defend us, because this is what he wanted. he wanted to remain in power. for that crime against the republic, he must be held accountability. senators, the insurrectionists are still listening. i didn't know the extent of many of these facts until preparing for this trial. i witnessed the horror, but i didn't know. i didn't know how deliberate the president's planning was, how he

had invested in it, how many times he incited his supporters with these lies, how carefully and consistently he incited them to violence on january the 6th. while many of us may have tuned out his rallies, i also did not know the extent that his followers were listening, were hanging on his every word. and honestly, i did not know how close the mob actually came to their violent ends, that they were just steps away from all of us, that the death toll could have been much higher but for the bravery of men and women who protected us. but now we know. we know the bravery of people like officer goodman and all the men and women of the capitol police, of the custodians with pride and a sense of duty in their work, cleaned up shattered glass, splintered wood, and bloodstained floors.

we know the sacrifice of life and limb. we know what donald trump did and what he failed to do. although it is difficult to bear witness and face the reality of what happened in these halls, what happens if we don't confront these facts? what happens if there is no accountability? for those who say we need to get past this, we need to come together, we need to unify, if we don't set this right and call it what it was, the highest of constitutional crimes by the president of the united states, the past will not be past. the past will become our future. for my grandchildren and for their children. senators, we are in a dialogue with history, a conversation with our past, with a hope for our future. 234 years from now, it may be that no one person here among us

is remembered. and yet what we do here, what is being asked of each of us here in this moment will be remembered. history has found us. i ask that you not look the other way. >> i would like to bring up mr. neguse . >> mr. president. distinguished senators. there is an old quote from henry clay, son of kentucky, that

courtesies of a small and trivial character are the ones that strike deepest in the grateful and appreciating heart. i want to say on behalf of all the house managers, we are very grateful for the courtesies that you've extended to us and to the president's counsel during the course of this trial. you have heard my colleague, manager dean, go through the overwhelming evidence that makes clear that president trump must be convicted and disqualified for his high crime. i'm not going to repeat that evidence. it speaks for itself. earlier in this trial, you might recall a few days ago that i mentioned my expectation that president trump's lawyers might do everything they could to avoid discussing the facts of this case. and i can understand why. i mean, the evidence that all of us presented, that manager dean

just summarized, is pretty devastating. and so rather than address it, the president has offered up distractions. excuses. anything but actually trying to defend against the facts. they said things like president trump is now a private citizen, so the criminal justice system can deal with him, or that we haven't set a clear standard for incitement. they talked a lot about due process and that all politicians say words like "fight." i would like to take a minute to explain why each of those distractions are precisely that, distractions, and why they do not prevent in any way the senate from convicting president trump. number one, every president is one day a private citizen again.

so the argument that because president trump has left office he shouldn't be impeached for conduct committed while he was in office doesn't make sense. i mean, why would the constitution include the impeachment power at all if the criminal justice system serves as a suitable alternative once a president leaves office? it wouldn't. impeachment is a remedy separate and apart from the criminal justice system, and for good reason. the presidency, it comes with special powers, extraordinary powers not bestowed on ordinary citizens. and if those powers are abused, they can cause great damage to our country and they have to be dealt with in a separate forum. this forum. and it would be unwise to

suggest that going forward, the only appropriate response to constitutional offences committed by a president are criminal charges when the president returns to private life. that's not the kind of political system any of us want. and it's not the kind of constitutional system the framers intended. second, it is true, we haven't cited criminal statutes establishing elements of incitement, because, again, this isn't a criminal trial. it's not a criminal case. president trump is charged with a constitutional offense. and you are tasked with determining whether or not he committed that high crime as understood by our framers. so the relevant question, which president trump's lawyers would have you ignore, is would our framers have considered a president inciting a violent mob

to attack our government while seeking to stop the certification of our elections, would they have considered that an impeachable offense. who among us, who among us really thinks the answer so that question is no? third, due process. so just to be absolutely clear, the house, with the sole power of impeachment, determines what the process looks like in the house. and the senate does the same for the trial. during this trial, the president has counsel. they've argued very vigorously on his behalf. we had a full presentation of evidence, adversarial presentations, motions. the president was invited to

testify. he declined. the president was invited to provide exculpatory evidence. he declined. you can't claim there's no due process when you won't participate in the process. and we know this case isn't one that requires a complicated legal analysis. you all lived it. the managers and i, we lived it. our country lived it. the president in public view, right out in the open, incited a violent mob. a mob that temporarily at least stopped us from certifying an election. if there were ever an exigent circumstance, this is it. number four. we all know that president trump's defense, as we

predicted, spent a lot of time, a whole lot of time, comparing his conduct to other politicians using words like "fight." you saw the hours of video. as i said on thursday, we trust you to know the difference. because what you will not find in those video montages that they showed you is any of those speeches, those remarks, culminating in a violent insurrection on our nation's capitol. that's the difference. the president spent months inflaming his supporters to believe that the election had been stolen from him, from them, which was not true. he summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and when the violence

erupted, he did nothing to stop it, instead inciting it further. senators, all of these arguments offered by the president have one fundamental thing in common, one. they have nothing to do with whether or not, factually, whether or not the president incited this attack. they've given you a lot of distractions so they don't have to defend what happened here on that terrible day. and they do that because they believe those distractions are going to work. that you'll ignore the president's conduct instead of confronting it. i think they're wrong. some of you know this already. i'm the youngest member of our manager team by quite a few

years. so perhaps i'm a bit naive. but i just don't believe that. i really don't. i don't believe their effort is going to work. and here is why, because i know what this body is capable of. i may not have witnessed it, but i've read about it in the history books. i've seen the c-span footage. archives, sometimes watched them for hours, and yes, i've actually done that. and the history of our country in those books and in those tapes, the history of this country has been defined right here on this floor. the 13th amendment, the amendment abolishing slavery, was passed in this very room, in this room, not figuratively. literally. where you all sit and where i stand. in 1964, this body, with the

help of senators like john sherman cooper and so many others, this body secured passage of the civil rights act. we made the decision to enter world war ii from this chamber. we've certainly had our struggles. but we've always risen to the occasion when it mattered the most. not by ignoring injustice or cowering to bullies and threats, but by doing the right thing, by trying to do the right thing. and that's why so many nations around the world aspire to be like america. they stand up to dictators and autocrats and tyrants because america is a guiding light for them, a north star. they do so, they look to us, because we have been a guiding light, a north star, in these moments. because the people who sat in

your chairs, when confronted with choices that define us, rose to the occasion. i want to offer one more example of a decision made in this room by this body that resonated with me. the first day i stood up in this trial, i mentioned that i was the son of immigrants like many of you and many senators graciously approached me after my presentation and asked me where my parents were from. i told those who asked that my folks were from east africa. in 1986, 1986, this body considered a bill to override president reagan's veto of legislation imposing sanctions on south africa during apartheid. two senators who sit in this room, one democrat, and one republican, voted to override

that veto. that vote was not about gaining political favor. in fact it was made despite potentially losing political favor. and i have to imagine that that vote was cast like the decisions before it, because there are moments that transcend party politics and that require us to put country above our party because the consequences of not doing so are just too great. senators, this is one of those moments. many folks who are watching today's proceedings may not know this, but house members like me and lead manager raskin, fellow managers, were not allowed on the senate floor without express permission. no one is, certainly the senators are aware of that. this floor is sacred.

it's one of the reasons why i, like so many of you, was so offended to see it desecrated by that mob, to see those insurrectionists diminishing, devaluing, disrespecting these hallowed halls that my whole life i have held in such awe. because of those rules that i just mentioned, this is the only time i have the privilege to stand before you like this. when the trial is over, i'll go back to being not an impeachment manager but back to being just a house member. the trial will end. we'll resume our lives and our work. but for some, there will be no end. no end to the pain of what happened on january 6th. the officers who struggled to recover from the injuries they sustained to protect us, they

struggle to recover today. the families who continue to mourn those who they lost on that terrible, tragic day. i was struck yesterday by defense counsel's continued references to hate. one of my favorite quotes of dr. martin luther king jr. it's sustained me in times of adversity, i suspect it sustains you, that i've decided to stick with love, that hate is too great a burden to bear. this trial is not born from hatred. far from it. it's born from love of country. our country. our desire to maintain it.

our desire to see america at its best. and in those moments that i spoke of, civil rights act, so much more, we remember those moments because they helped define and enshrine america at its best. i firmly believe that our certification of the electoral college votes in the early hours of january 7th, our refusal to let our republic be threatened and taken down by a violent mob, will go down in history as one of those moments too. and i believe that this body can rise to the occasion once again today. by convicting president trump and defending our republic. and the stakes, the stakes could

not be higher. because the cold, hard truth is that what happened on january 6th can happen again. i fear, like many of you do, that the violence we saw on that terrible day may be just the beginning. we've shown you the ongoing risks, the extremist groups who grow more emboldened every day. senators, this cannot be the beginning. it can't be the new normal. it has to be the end. that decision is in your hands .

>> mr. president. >> mr. raskin. >> senators. my daughter hannah said something to me last night that stopped me cold and brought me up short. the kids have been very moved by all the victims of the violence, the officers and their families. but hannah told me last night she felt really sorry for the kid of a man who said goodbye to his children before he left home to come and join trump's actions. their father had told them that their dad might not be coming home again and they might never see him again. in other words, he was expecting violence. he might die. as insurrectionists did. and that shook me. hannah said, how can the

president put children and people's families in that situation and then just run away from the whole thing? that shook me. and i was filled with self reproach because when i first saw the line about your father going to washington and you might not see him again, i just thought about it, well, like a prosecutor, like a manager, i thought, what damning evidence that is that people are expecting lethal violence at a protest called by the president of the united states, and saying their final goodbyes to their kids. but hannah, my dear hannah, thought of it like a human being. she thought of it, if you'll forgive me, like a patriot. someone who just lost her brother and doesn't want to see any other kids in america go through that kind of agony and

grief. senators, when i say all three of my kids are better than me, you know that i am not engaged in idle flattery. maybe some of you feel the same way about your kids. they're literally better people than me. they've got a lot of their mom, sarah blum raskin, in them. they're better than me. hannah saw through the legality of the situation. she saw through the politics of the situation. all the way to the humanity of the situation, the morality of the situation. that was one of the most patriotic things i ever heard anybody say. the children of the insu insurre insurrectionists, even the violent and dangerous ones, they're our children too. they are americans and we must take care of them and their future. we must recognize and exercise these crimes against our nation and then we must take care of

our people and our children, their hearts and their minds. as tommy raskin used to say, it's hard to be human. many of the capitol and metropolitan police officers and guardsmen and women who were beaten up by the mob also have kids. you remember officer finone, who had a heart attack after being tased and roughed up for hours by the mob and then begged for his life, telling the insurrectionists that he had four daughters. and that just about broke my heart all over again. we talked about this for a long time last night. my kids felt terrible that other kids' fathers and mothers were pulled into this nightmare by a president of the united states. senators, we proved he betrayed his country. we proved he betrayed his constitution. we proved he betrayed his oath of office. the startling thing to recognize

now is that he is even betraying the mob. he told them he would march with them and he didn't. they believed the president was right there with them somewhere in the crowd fighting the fantasy conspiracy to steal the election and steal their country away from them. they thought they were one big team working together. he told them their great journey together was just beginning. and now there are hundreds of criminal prosecutions getting going all over the country. people getting set to say goodbye to members of their family. and the president who contacted them, solicited them, lured them, invited them, incited them, that president has suddenly gone quiet and dark. nowhere to be found. he cannot be troubled to come here to tell us what happened. and tell us why this was the patriotic and the constitutional

thing to do. senators, this trial in the final analysis is not about donald trump. the country and the world know who donald trump is. this trial is about who we are, who we are. my friend dara williams said sometimes the truth is like a second chance. we've got a chance here with the truth. we still believe in the separation of powers. president trump tried to sideline or run over every other branch of government, thwart the will of the people at the state level, usurp the people's choice for president. this case is about whether our country demands a peaceful, nonviolent transfer of power to guarantee the sovereignty of the

people. are we going to defend the people who defend us? not just honor them with medals, as you rightfully did yesterday, but actually back them up against savage, barbaric insurrectionary violence. will we restore the honor of our capitol and the people who work here? will we be a democratic nation that the world looks to for understanding democratic values and practices and constitutional government and the rights of women and men? will the senate condone the president of the united states inciting a violent attack on our chambers, our offices, our staff and the officers who protect us? when you see the footage of officer hodges stuck in the doorway, literally being tortured by the mob, if the

government did that to you, that would be torture. when you see that footage and he's shouting in agony for his dear life, it's almost unwatchable. when the vice president of the united states escapes a violent mob that's entered this capitol building seeking to hang him and calling out "traitor, traitor, traitor," and when they shut down the counting of the electoral college votes, is this the future you imagine for our kids? is it totally appropriate, as we've been told? or as representative cheney said, is it the greatest betrayal of the presidential oath of office in the history of our country? and if we can't handle this together as a people, all of us, forgetting the lines of party and ideology and geography and all of those things, if we can't handle this, how are we ever

going to conquer the other crises of our day? is this america? is this what we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren? i was never a great sunday school student. actually i was pretty truant most of the time. but one line always stuck with me from the book of exodus, as both beautiful and haunting, even as a kid, after i asked what the words meant. thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. the officer who got called the "n" words 15 times, after battling insurrectionists with bear spray and confederate battle flags, posed the right question to the senate and to

all of us. is this america? senators, that's going to be up to you now. whatever committees and subcommittees you're on, whatever you came to washington to do, to work on, from defense to agriculture to energy to aerospace to health care, this is almost certainly how you will be remembered by history. that might not be fair. it really might not be fair. but none of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now. our reputations and our legacy will be inextricably intertwined with what we do here and with how you exercise your oath to do impartial justice. impartial justice. i know and i trust you will do impartial justice driven by your meticulous attention to the overwhelming facts of the case and your love for our

constitution which i know dwells in your heart. the times have found us, said tom payne, the namesake of my son. is this america? what kind of america will we be? it's now literally in your hands. godspeed to the senate of the united states. we reserve any remaining time. >> the house has reserved 28 minutes. >> proceed.

>> i'm talking and it will not be so long. and before i start my prepared closing, i really want to clean up a few things from the mess that was the closing of the house managers. i do not want to ruin my closing because i think the ending is pretty good. what they didn't -- they started off by misstating the law and they started off by misstating the intent of our stipulation. what we did today was stipulate to an article that was published in a magazine apparently they've had for weeks according to the documents they produced today. but for some reason this morning popped up with it. the stipulation was that they can put that in. we did not stipulate to its contents for truthfulness. and they tried to portray that in their closing as the

stipulation. the stipulation was read into the record. the proponents of that conversation, the real ones, have denied its content, its veracity. with respect to -- i'm not going to talk much about the tortured analysis of our arson wars that started off or the truly sideways analogies that were used with fires. what i do want to talk about, though, is the doctoring of evidence. first of all, they sent us their evidence on tuesday the 9th at 2:32 p.m. by email. i was in this room trying the case already when they sent their evidence. due process. they used evidence that was flat wrong two or three nights ago

with senator lee and had to withdraw it. they tried to use it again today. they tried to use evidence that they had never presented in the case in their closing argument. that is a very desperate attempt by a prosecuting team, nine of them, by a prosecuting team that knew that their case has coll collapsed. their closing did not mention one piece of law. they didn't talk about the constitution once. they didn't talk about the first amendment and its application. they didn't talk about due process and how it applies to this proceeding for my client.

basic rule of any court is that when you close a case out, you close on the facts that were admitted in the trial. it's a basic, fundamental principle of due process and fairness. and that was violently breached today on multiple occasions and you have to ask yourself why. why did they resort to those tactics at this moment in time ?

senators, good afternoon, mr. president. what took place here at the u.s. capitol on january 6th was a grave tragedy. over the course of this trial, you have heard no one on either side of this debate argue that the infiltration of the capitol was anything less than a heinous act on the home of american democracy. all of us, starting with my client, are deeply disturbed by the graphic videos of the capitol attack that have been shown in recent days. the entire team condemned and have repeatedly condemned the violence and law-breaking that occurred on january 6th in the strongest possible terms we've advocated everybody be found, punished to the extent of the law. yet the question before us is not whether there was a violent

insurrection of the capitol . on that point, everyone agrees. based on the explicit text of the house impeachment article, this trial is about whether mr. trump willfully engaged in incitement of violence and even insurrection against the united states, and that question they have posed in their article of impeachment has to be set up against the law of this country. no matter how much truly horrifying footage we see of the conduct of the rioters and how much emotion has been injected into this trial, that does not change the fact that mr. trump is innocent of the charges against him. despite all of the video played, at no point in their

presentation did you hear the house managers play a single example of mr. trump urging anyone to engage in violence of any kind. at no point did you hear anything that could ever possibly be construed as mr. trump encouraging or sanctioning an insurrection. senators, you did not hear those tapes because they do not exist, because the act of incitement never happened. he engaged no incitement of language whatsoever on january 6th or any other day. no unbiased person listening to mr. trump's speech on his lips was is ee litsing violence. he explicitly told them he expected it to be peaceful and

patriotic. they claimed it's not enough. his entire premise was the proceedings of it should continue. he spent his entire speech he believes members of congress should vote on the matter. it's the words. the supreme court ruled in brandenburg that there is a very clear standard for incitement. in short, you have to look at the words themselves. the words have to either explicitly or implicitly call for -- the words call for lawlessness or violence. whether the speech -- you have to determine whether the speech was intended to provoke the lawlessness and whether the violence was the likely result of the word itself. they fail on all three prongs. the faults and defamatory claim that mr. trump gave a speech

encouraging his supporters to go and attack the capitol has been repeated so often, uncritically, without any examination of the underlying facts that the americans listening at home were probably surprised to learn it's not true. furthermore, some of the people in this room followed trump's statements and tweets leading up to january 6th very closely. we know he was not trying to foment an insurrection during the time because know one from the speaker of the house to the mayor of washington, d.c., behaviored in a fashion consistent with the belief that violence was being advocated for. mr. trump did not spend the weeks prior to january 6th inciting violence. he spent those weeks pursuing his election challenge through the court system and other legal procedures exactly as the constitution and congress

proscribe. to believe based on the evidence you have seen that mr. trump actually wanted and indeed willfully incited an armed insurrection to overthrow the u.s. government would be absurd. the gathering on january 6th was supposed to be an entirely peaceful event. thousands and thousands of people including mr. trump showed up that day with that intention. a small percentage, a small fraction of those people then engaged in truly horrible behavior, but as we now know, that those actors were preplanned and premeditated and acted even before the speech was completed to which is the basis of the article of impeachment. it was preplanned and premed talted by fringe left and right

groups. they hijacked the event for their own purposes. the house managers' false narrative is a brazenly dishonest attempt to smear, to cancel constitutional cancel culture, their number one political opponent taking neutral statements, commonplace political rhetoric, removing words and facts from context, and ascribing to them the most sinister and mall evan intentions possible. their story was based not on evidence but on the sheer personal and political animus. the flimsy theory of incitement you heard from the house managers could be used to impeach, indict, or expel countless other political leaders. many leading figures and other

leading parties have engaged far more incendiary and dangerous rhetoric. we played some of it. i'm not going to replay it. i'm not going to replay you the words. you all saw the evidence. i'm not going to replay you mob scenes. i don't want to give those people another platform, any more view from the american people, as to what they did. they should be canceled. democrat politicians spent months prior to january 6th attacking the very legitimacy of our nation's most cherished institutions and traditions. they didn't just question the integrity of one election. they challenged the integrity of our entire everything from our founding fathers, constitution, declaration of independence, law enforcement officers, and united states

military. they said that our society was rooted in hatred. they even said that americans deserve -- and i'll quote -- a reckoning. as you heard yesterday, throughout the summer, democrat leaders, including current president and vice president, repeatedly made comments that provided moral comfort to mobs attacking police officers. during that time, many officers across the country were injured. as we all know, two sheriff's deputies in los angeles were ambushed and shot at point blank range. members of this very body have been in danger. senators from maine to kentucky and most points in between have been harassed by mobs. last august a menacy left-wing mob swarmed senator rand paul

and his wife as they left the white house, and they had to be rescued by police. for months our federal co courthouse in portland was placed under seerj by anarchists who attacked law enforcement officer daily and repeatedly and tried to set fire of the building. nancy pelosi didn't call the fire on the building an insurrection. she called the directors of it storm troopers. the white house complex was besieged by mobs that threw bricks, rocks, and bottles at secret service agents, set fire to an historic structure, and breached the security fence to infiltrate the treasury grounds. when my client's administration

sent in the military, democrat leaders demanded that the forces be withdrawn. the washington, d.c., mayor said the presence of the national guard was an affront to the safety of the district. it must be fully investigated whether political leadership in washington, d.c., too an inadequate and irresponsible forced posture on january 6th because of the commitment to the false narrative of what happened last june. hopefully we can all now agree that the administration acted properly by taking action to stop a riotous mob, steak an appropriate security perimeter, and prevent the white house from potentially being overrun. the house managers argued this week that an alleged brief delay in issuing a public statement from mr. trump on january 6th

was somehow evidence that he committed incitement or supported the violence. yet for months last year joe biden, vice president harris, and countless of other democrats repeat lid refused to condemn the extremism as riots were occurring daily, as businesses were being ram shalked, as neighborhoods were being burned, as bombs were exploding. they repeatedly refused to tell their violent supporters to stand down. some even suggested that the mob's actions were justified. vice president harris literally urged her followers to donate money to a fund to bail out the violent extreme rioters so that they could get out and continue to do it over and over again.

she later said that those folks were not going to let up and that they should not. all of this was far closer to the actual definition of incitement than anything president trump has ever said or done, never mind what he said on the 6th. it's a hypocrisy -- it's a hypocrisy that the house managers have laid at the feet of this chamber. the house managers suggested in this recent -- that this recent history is irrelevant to the current proceedings, but not only is democrats' behavior surrounding last year's riots highly relevant as precedent and not only does it reveal the

dishonesty and insincerity of this entire endeavor, it also provides crucial context that should inform our understanding of the events that took place on january 6th. many of the people who infiltrated the capitol took pictures of themselves and posted them on social media. to some, it seems, they thought that it was all a game. they apparently believed that violent mobs, destruction of property, rioting, assaulting police, and vandalizing historic treasures was somehow now acceptable in the united states. where might they have gotten that idea? i would suggest to you that it was not from mr. trump. it was not mr. trump. it was not anyone in the republican party that spent the six months immediately prior to

the capitol assault giving rhetorical aid and comfort to mobs, making excuses for rioters, celebrating radicalism, and explaining that angry, frustrated, and marginalized people were entitled to blow off steam like that. let me be very clear. there can be no excuse for the depraved actions of the rioters here at the capitol or anywhere else across this country. 100% of those guilty of committing crimes deserve lengthy prison sentences for their shameful and depraved conduct. but this trial has raised the question about words, actions, and consequences. as a nation, we must ask ourselves, how did we arrive at this place where rioting and pillaging have become commonplace. i submit to you that it was

month after month of political leaders and media personalities, bloodthirsty for ratings, glorifying civil unrest and condemning the reasonable law enforcement measures that are required to quell violent mobs. hopefully we can all leave this chamber in uniform agreement that all rioting, all rioting is bad and that law enforcement deserves our respect and support. that has been mr. trump's position from the very beginning. the real question in this case is who is ultimately responsible for such acts of mayhem and violence when they are committed? house democrats want two different standards. one for themselves and one for their political opposition. they have carried out a grossly

unconstitutional effort to punish mr. trump for protected first amendment speech. it's an egregious violation of his constitutional rights. since he uttered not a single word encouraging violence, this action can only be seen as an effort to sensor speech and disapprove viewpoint. it's an unprecedent action with a potential to do grave and lasting damage to both the presidency and separation of powers and the future of democratic self-government. yesterday we played you a video of countless democrat members of the senate urging their supporters to fight. we showed you those videos not because we think you should be forcibly removed from office for saying those things but because we know you should not be forcibly removed from office for

saying those things. but recognize the hypocrisy. yesterday in questioning house manager raskin admitted they had created an entirely new legal standard. in fact, they've created a new legal theory, the raskin doctrine. the raskin doctrine is nothing more than protected speech party label next to your name. regardless of what you have heard or seen from the house managers, if you pay close attention, you will see that any speech made by democrat elected officials is protected speech while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin

doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house managers' case. elected officials -- and we reviewed this in depth yesterday -- under supreme court precedent would and bond -- by the way, bond didn't burn his draft card. he actually still had it. it was part of his defense. but in bond and in wood, the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech, the highest protections. and i remind you why, because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go,

and that shouldn't be squelched by any political party on either side of the aisle no matter who's the majority party at the time. why would the house managers make up their own legal standard? i'll tell you why. because they know they cannot satisfy the existing constitutional standard set forth by the united states supreme court that has existed for more than half a century. they argue mr. trump as an elected official has no first amendment rights. it's the complete opposite of the law. we've shown you without contradiction that is wrong. they also know that they cannot satisfy the three-part test of brandenburg as ill lewis dated in the bible-believer's case.

there was absolutely no evidence that mr. trump's words were directed to inciting imminent lawless action. there was no evidence that mr. trump intended his words to incite violence. and the violence was preplanned and premeditated by a group of lawless actors who must be prosecuted to the fullest extenlts oftent of the law, butt proves his words weren't what set this into motion, what was the incitement. with no ability, no evidence to satisfy the constitutional standards, what are the house managers to do? they had to make up their own law. this is not only intellectually dishonest, folks. it's downright scary. what type of precedent would be

set if senate was able to vote to convict. are they on the contours of protected free speech? will congress be permitted to continually make up their own legal standards and apply those new standards to elected officials' speech? this would allow congress to use the awesome impeachment power as a weapon to impeach their fellow colleagues in the opposing party. this is not a precedent this senate can set here today. if the senate endorses the house democrats' absurd new theory, you will set a precedent that will trouble leaders from both parties literally for centuries to come but that will not be the

only disgraceful thing dom from this case. this has been the most unfair and flagrantly unconstitutional proceeding in the history of the united states senate. for the first time in history, congress has asserted the right to try and punish a former president who is a private citizen. nowhere in the constitution is the power enumerated or implied. congress has no authority, no right, and no business holding a trial of citizen trump, let alone a trial to deprive him of some fundamental civil rights. there was mention of a january exception argument. the january exception argument is a creation of the house managers' own conduct by delaying. they sat on the article.

they could have tried the president while he was still in office if they really believed he was in imminent threat. they didn't. the january exception is a red herring. it's nonsense because federal, state, and local authorities can investigate. their january exception also expires on january 20th. house democrats and this deeply unfair trial have shamefully trampled every tradition, norm, and standard of due process in a way i've never, ever seen before. mr. trump was given no right to review the so-called evidence against him at trial. he was given no opportunity to

question its propriety. he was given no chance to engage in fact-finding. much of what was introduced by the house was unverified, second- or third-hand reporting cribbed from a biased news media, including stories based on anonymous sources whose identities aren't even known to them, never mind my client. they manufactured and doctored evidence, so much so that they had to withdraw it. we only had -- we had the evidence after we started the trial. they went on for two days, so in the evening i was able to go back around take a really close look at the stuff. myself and mr. castor and miss bateman and mr. brennan, we all worked hard and looked at the

evidence, four vuolumes of book in little tiny print. we started with literally 12, 14 hours to look at the evidence before we had to go on. and just in that short time of looking at the evidence, we saw them fabricating twitter accounts. we saw the masked man sitting at his desk with "the new york times" there, and when we looked closely, we found that the date was wrong, the check had been added. they fabricated evidence. they made it up. they never addressed that. in their closing. as though it was acceptable. as though it were all right. as though that's the way it should be done here in the senate of the united states of

america. fraud, flat out. fraud. where i come from and the courts that i practice in, there are very harsh repercussions for what they pulled in this trial. phew. as we've shown, the house managers were caught creating false representations of twees, manipulating videos, and introducing into the record completely discredited lies such as the fine people hoax as factual evidence. most of what the house managers

have said and shown you would be inadmissible in any respectable court of law. they were not trying a case. they were telling a political tale, a fable, and a patently false one at that. house democrats have denied due process and rushed the impeachment because they know that a fair trial would reveal mr. trump's innocence of the charges against him. the more actual evidence that comes out, the clearer it is that this was a preplanned and premeditated attack which his language in no way incited. because their case is so week, the house managers have taken a kitchen sink approach to the supposedly single article of impeachment. they allege that mr. trump incited the january 6th violence. they allege that he abused power by attempting to pressure georgia secretary of state wrath

lynx burger to undermine the results of the 2020 election, and they allege that he gravely endangered the democratic system by interfering with the peaceful transition of power. there are at least three things there. under the senate rules, each of these allegations must have been alleged in a separate article of impeachment. i need not remind this chamber that rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials provides in pertinent part that an article of impeachment shall not be devisible thereon. why is that? because the article at issue here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article, it would be impossible to know if two-thirds

of the members agreed on the entire article or just on parts of it as the basis for a vote to convict. based on this alone, the senate must vote to acquit mr. trump. you've got to at least obey your own rules if it's not the constitution you're going to obey. in short, this impeachment has been a complete charade from beginning to end. the entire spectacle has been nothing but the unhinged pursuit of a long-standing political vendetta against mr. trump by the opposition party. as we have shown, democrats were obsessed with impeaching mr. trump from the very beginning of his term. the house democrats tried to impeach him in his first year. they tried to impeach him in his second year. they did impeach him in his

third year. and they impeached him again in his fourth year. and now they have conducted a phony impeachment show trial when he's a private citizen out of office. this hastily orchestrated and unconstitutional circus is the house democrats' final desperate attempt to accomplish their obsessive desire of the last five years. since the moment he stepped into the political arena, my client -- since my client stepped in, they have been possessed by an overwhelming zeal to vanquish an independent-minded outsider in the midst of shame, demean, silence, and demonize his supporters in the desperate hope that they will never, ever pose an electoral challenge. we heard one of the congressmen

on the screen, if you don't impeach him, he might be elected again. that's the fear. that's what's driving this impeachment. when you deliberate over your decision, there are four distinct grounds under which you must acquit my client. first is jurisdiction. there is no jurisdiction. and if you believe that, you still get to say it. two, rule 23, it had to be devisible. each glcongratulations had to b singularly set out in front of you so it could be voted on to

see if two-thirds of you think that they proved that case or not. they didn't do that. you've got to ask yourself why. they know the senate rules. they got them, and so did i. why did they do it? because they hadn't investigated, first of all, but also what they found out is they were preparing all of this, they couldn't do it. so if they threw as much in as they could and made as many bold, bald allegations as they could, then maybe two-thirds of you would fall for it. that's why the rules don't allow it go that way. due process. i've exhausted that subject. it's a really good reason for all of you, all of you in this

chamber to stop the politics, to read the constitution and apply it to this proceeding, and acknowledge that the lack of due process, way over the top, shocking, and you must not stand for it. and, of course, the first amendment, the actual facts of this case. there were no words of incitement for grounds. nobody gets to tell you which ground to pick, and nobody gets to tell you how many grounds to consider. senators, do not let house democrats take this man actionle crusade any further. the senate does not have to go down this dark path of anonymity

and division. you do not have to indulge the impeachment lust, the dishonesty, and the hypocrisyhy. it is time to bring this unconstitutional political theater to an end. it is time to allow our nation to move forward. it is time to address the real business pressing this nation, the pandemic, our economy, racial inequality, economic and social inequality. these are the things that you need to be thinking and working on for all of us in america. all of us. with your vote, you can defend the constitution. you can protect due process. and you can allow america's

healing to begin. i urge the senate to acquit and vindicate the constitution of this great republican. thank you. [ indiscernible ] >> mr. president, senators, i understand, i'm told we have around 27 minutes, but i will return all of that but perhaps five back to you. there are just a few things i need to address. so in an extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented act of self-restraint on my part, i will resist the opportunity to rebut every single false and illogical thing that you just heard and i'm going to be able to return to you perhaps 22 or 23 minutes. a few points. one, we have definitely made

some progress in the last few days because a few days ago, the president's team, although i think it was perhaps a member who has since left the team, lectured us that this was not an insurrection and said that impeachment managers were outrageous in using the word "insurrection." today counsel in his closing statement said it was a violent insurrection, and he des nowed it, and i would certainly love to see president trump also call it a violent insurrection and denounce it too. and i believe, although i don't have a very bay tim text -- that counsel called for long sentences for the people involved. again, i would love to hear that come from the president as well. the distinguished counsel complains there's no precedent with a developed body of law that the senate has for impeaching and convicting a president who incited violent

insurrection against the congress and the government of the united states. well, i suppose it's true because it never occurred to any other president of the united states from george washington from thomas jefferson to james madison to james monroe to abraham lincoln to ronald reagan to george w. bush to barack obama to incite a violent insurrection against the union. you're right, we've got no precedent for that. they somehow think that's a mark in their favor, that that's a score for them, that this senate has to be the first one to define incitement of insurrection against the union, and so the gentleman puts it on me. he says, inciting a president for committing incitement to violent insurrection against the union is the new raskin doctrine. we've tried to convince him

there are well-known principles and elements of incitement which we have talked to you about ad nauseam and this is an intrinsically inherent fact-based judgment, but if that's a doctrine the united states can't incite, violence in the union and congress, then i embrace it and take it as an honor. most law professors never get a doctrine named after them, so i will accept that. and finally the counsel goes back to julian bonds' case because as pathetic as their analysis is, it's really about the first amend. remember they talk about stifling president trump's speech. tell me when he ever had his speech stifling. he's said exactly what he wants when he wants. when you charge him with

incitement of insurrection, he continues to say whatever he wants to on that day. remember yesterday they found interference with his liberty, which i found absolutely bizarre because everyone knows he will not spend one minute in prison or jail on these charges. it's a civil remedy to protect all of us, to protect our entire country, our children, our constitution, our future. that's what impeachment trial conviction are all about, are all about. julian bond. see, i knew julian bond. forgive me. most people say don't even respond to this stuff. i've got to respond, okay? julian bond was a civil rights activist who decided to go into politics like the people in this room, like all of us who are in politics. and they tried to keep him out. he was a member of snicc, which

really launched the voting rights movement in america. the great story bob moses tells in his book about radical equations. he was a mathematics student at harvard. he went down to the mississippi. you know why? he saw a picture in "the new york times" of black civil rights protesters, college students, i think in north carolina, at&t. he saw a picture on the cover of "the new york times," and they were sitting in at a lunch cou counter. said, they looked the way that i felt. he say they looked the way i had held. he said, i had go down to mississippi. he launched the mississippi voting. they would go door to door to try to register people to vote. but anyway, julian bond was part of that movement. the student non-violence

coordinating committee, non-violence. it was the end and it was the means. non-violence. and he ran for -- he ran for the state legislature in georgia, a path other civil rights activists followed like our late, great beloved congressman john lewis who's in our hearts today, and when he got elected, they wanted to try to keep him from being sworn in to the georgia legislature, and so they said, the student non-violent coordinating committee is taking a position against the vietnam warring you're a member of snicc, we're not going to admit you because you took a position against the vietnam war, and the supreme court took a position and said you cannot commit someone to not swear an oath for a position they took prior to being sworn in. that's the exact opposite of donald trump. he got elected to an oath of

office, swore an oath to the constitution to protect and serve. he served as president for four years right up until the end when he wanted to exercise his rights under the january/february inception and incited a mob to come up here and an insurrection and we all know what happened. he's being impiech and convicted for violate ang oath of auchs he took. he's not being prevented from taking his oath in the first place. the first amendment's on our side. he tried to overturn the will on the people. he lost that election by more than 7 million votes. some people don't want to admit it. counsel for the president could not bring themselves to admit the election is over. in answer to the question from the distinguished gentleman from vermont, he refused to admit it's relevant despite all the evidence that it's a big lie and

the incitement of insurrection against us. the first amend is on our side. we are defending the bill of rights. we are defending the constitutional structure. we are defending the separation of powers. we're defending the u.s. senate and the u.s. house against a. pirate who acted no better than a marauder and member of that mob by inciting people to come here, and in many ways he was worse. he named the date, he named the time, and he brought them here, and now he must pay the price. thank you, mr. president. >> thank you, mr. raskin. >> mr. president. >> the majority leader's recognized. >> mr. president, the senate is now ready to vote on the article of impeachment, and after that is done, we will adjourn the court of impeachment.

>> the clerk will read the article of impeachment . article i, incitement of insurrection. >> senate will be in order. >> the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall have the

sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. further, section 3 of the 14th amend to the constitution prohibits any person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states from holding any office under the united states and his conduct while president of the united states in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the president of the united states and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald john trump engaged high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the united states in that on january 6th, 2021, pursuant to the 12th amendment to the

constitution of the united states, the vice president of the united states, the house of representatives, and the senate met at the united states capitol for a joint session of congress to count the votes of the electoral college. in the months preceding the joint session, president trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the american people or certified by state or federal officials. shortly before the joint session commenced, president addressed a crowd at the ellipse in washington, d.c. there he reiterated false claims that we won't -- we won this election and we won it by a landslide. he also willfully made statements that in context encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the capitol such as if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,

thus incited by president trump, members of crowd he had addressed to attempt among others to interfere with the joint solemn constitutional duty to certified the results of 2020 presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the capitol, injure and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced members of congress and other personal and engaged in over deadly and seditious acts. president trump's conduct on january 6th, 2021. followed his prior efforts to subvert the prior results of the 2021 election. those were in a phone call during which president trump urged the secretary of state of georgia, brad racket lis burger to find enough votes to overturn the georgia presidential election results and threatened security wrath lis berger if he

failed to 'zo so. in all of this he gravely endangered the institution of the united states, threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the impeachmentment power and imperiled the government. he therefore betrayed his judgment of president to the manifest injury of the people of the united states, wherefore, donald john trch by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy in the constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-government and the rule of law. donald trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, and profit in the united states and demand that you, the said donald john trump should be put forth to answer the questions in this article and

sump proceedings, trials, and judgments might be there upon had as agreeable to laws and justice. >> each senator when his or her name is called will stand in his or her place and they'll vote guilty or not guilty as required by rule 23 of the senate rules of impeachment. article i, section 3, clause section of the constitution, regarding the vote required for conviction on impeachment provides that, quote, no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present, close quote. the question is on the article of impeachment. senators, how say you? is the respon accident donald john trump guilt or not guilty? a roll call vote is required and the clerk will call the roll.

>> miss baldwin. miss baldwin. >> guilty. >> mr. barrasso. mr. barrasso, not guilty. mr. bennett, mr. bennet, guilty. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, not guilty. mr. blumenthal. mr. blumenthal, guilty. mr. blunt. mr. blunt, not guilty. mr. booker. mr. booker, guilty. mr. boozman. mr. boozman, not guilty. mr. braun. mr. braun, not guilty.

mr. brown. mr. brown, guilty. mr. burr. mr. burr, guilty. miss cantwell. miss cantwell, guilty. mrs. capito. mrs. capito, not guilty. mr. cardin. mr. cardin, guilty. mr. carper. mr. carper, guilty. mr. casey. mr. casey, guilty. mr. cassidy. mr. cassidy, guilty. miss collins. miss collins, guilty. mr. coons. mr. coons, guilty.

mr. cornyn. mr. cornyn, not guilty. ms. cortez masto. miss cortez masto, guilty. mr. cotton. mr. cotton, not guilty. mr. cramer. mr. cramer, not guilty. mr. crapo. mr. crapo, not guilty. mr. cruz. mr. cruz, not guilty. mr. daines. mr. daines, not guilty. m ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth, gilby. mr. durbin. mr. durbin, guilty.

ms. ernst ms. ernlt, not guilty. mrs. feinstein. mrs. feinstein, not guilty mr. fischer, mrs. fisher not guilty. mrs. jill grand brand. mrs. jill brand, not guilty. mr. graham, will be graham, another guilty. mr. grassley. mr. grassley, not guilty. mr. hagerty. mr. hagerty, not guilty. mrs. hassan. mrs. hassan. guilty. mr. hawley. mr. hawley, not guilty. mr. heinrich. mr. heinrich, guilty. mr. hickenlooper. mr. hickenlooper, guilty.

ms. her row noe. miss hirono, guilty. mr. hoeven. mr. hoeven, not guilty. mrs. hide smith. mrs. hyde-smith, not guilty. mr. inhofe. mr. inhofe, not guilty. mr. johnson. mr. johnson, not guilty. mr. kaine. mr. kaine, guilty. mr. kelly. mr. kelly, guilty. mr. kennedy. mr. kennedy, not guilty. mr. king. mr. king, guilty. ms. klobuchar. ms. klobuchar, guilty. mr. lankford. mr. lankford, not guilty.

mr. leahy. mr. leahy, guilty. mr. lee. mr. lee, not guilty. mr. lujan. mr. lujan, guilty. ms. lummis. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. manchin, guilty. mr. markey. mr. markey, guilty. mr. marshall. mr. marshall, not guilty. mr. mcconnell. mr. mcconnell, not guilty. mr. menendez. mr. menendez, guilty. mr. merkley. mr. merkley, guilty. mr. moran. mr. moran, not guilty.

ms. murkowski. ms. murkowski, guilty. mr. murphy. mr. murphy, guilty. mrs. murray. mrs. murray, guilty. mr. ossoff. mr. ossoff, guilty. mr. padilla. mr. padilla, guilty. mr. paul. mr. paul, not guilty. mr. peters. mr. peters, guilty. mr. portman. mr. portman, not guilty. mr. reed. mr. reed, guilty. mr. risch. mr. risch, not guilty. mr. romney. mr. romney, guilty.

missi ms. rosen. ms. rosen guilty. mr. rounds. mr. rounds, not guilty. mr. rubio. mr. rubio, not guilty. mr. sanders. mr. sanders, guilty. mr. sasse. mr. sasse, guilty. mr. schatz. mr. schatz, guilty. mr. schumer. mr. schumer, guilty. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of florida, not guilty. mr. scott of south carolina. mr. scott of south carolina, not guilty. mrs. shaheen. mrs. shaheen, guilty. mr. shelby. mr. shelby, not guilty. ms. sinema. ms. sinema, guilty. ms. smith.

ms. smith, investigate. ms. stabenow. ms. stabenow, guilty, mr. sullivan. mr. sullivan, not guilty. mr. tester. mr. tester, guilty. mr. thune. mr. thune, not guilty. mr. tillis. mr. tillis, not guilty. mr. toomey. mr. toomey, guilty. mr. tubber ville. mr. tuberville, not guilty. mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen, guilty. mr. warner. mr. warner, guilty. mr. warnock. mr. warnock, guilty. ms. warren. ms. warren, guilty. mr. whitehouse. mr. whitehouse, guilty. mr. wicker. mr. wicker, not guilty. mr. wyden.

mr. wyden, guilty. mr. young. mr. young, not guilty.

>> the hearings are 57. the nays are 43. two-thirds of the senators have pleaded not guilty. directs judgment to be entered in accordance with the judgment of the senate as follows. the senate having tried donald john trump, former president of the united states, article one of the impeachment exhibited against him by the house of representatives and two-thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charge contained therein, it is

therefore ordered that the said donald john trump be and he is hereby acquitted of the charge in said article. >> mr. president, majority leaders recognize. mr. president, i send an order to the desk. >> and the clerk will report. >> order that the secretary be directed to communicate to the secretary of state as provided by rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials and also to the house of representatives the judgment of the senate in the case of donald john trump and transmit a certified copy of the judgment to each. >> without objection, the order will be entered. majority leader. >> mr. president, i move that the senate sitting as a court of impeachment on the article against donald john trump

adjourn. >> and without objection, the motion is agreed to the senate. the senate sits adjourned. order please, the presiding officer of the acting sergeant at arms will escort the house managers out of the senate chamber. >> the former president of the united states donald j. trump has now been acquitted by the united states senate on the charge of inciting an inrecollection at the u.s. capitol on january 6th in a historic 57-43 votes with 7 republicans voting to convict. democrats falling short of the 67 votes needed to convict trump. this is the second time donald trump has been acquitted in an

impeachment trial in the u.s. senate, and it's the shortest impeachment trial in american history, just five days of arguments and presentations. ultimately with this vote, the republican party signalled it's not willing to rebuke the former president with conviction. let's go back to the senate floor. >> the senate is not in order and the senate will be in order. >> mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. >> without objection. does any senator seek recognition? majority leader, senator from new york. >> mr. president, the case of donald trump's second impeachment trial was open. mr. president, can we have order, please?

>> the senator is right. the senate is not in order. senate will be in order. senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. >> thank you, mr. president. the case of donald trump's second impeachment trial was open and shut. president trump told a lie, a big lie, that the election was stolen and that he was the rightful winner. he laid the groundwork for this big lie in the months before the election. he told the big lie on election night, and he repeated the big lie more than 100 times in the weeks afterwards. he summoned his supporters to washington, assembled them on the ellipse, whipped them into a frenzy and directed them at the capitol. and then he watched as the violence unfolded and the capitol was breached and his own

vice president fled for his life and president trump did nothing. none of these facts were up for debate. we saw it. we heard it. we lived it. this was the first presidential impeachment trial in history in which all senators were not only judges and jurors but witnesses to the constitutional crime that was committed. the former president inspired, directed and propelled a mob to violently prevent the peaceful transfer of power, subvert the will of the people and illegally keep that president in power. there is nothing -- nothing -- more un-american than that. there is nothing -- nothing -- more antithetical to our democracy. there is nothing -- nothing -- more insulting to the generations of american patriots who gave their lives to defend our form of government. this was the most egregious

violation of the presidential oath of office and a textbook example, a classic example, of an impeachable offense worthy of the constitution's most severe remedy. in response to the incontrovertible fact of donald trump's guilt, the senate was subject to a feeble and sometimes incomprehensible defense of the former president. unable to dispute the case on the merits, the former president's counsel treated us to partisan vitriol, false equivalence and outright falsehoods. we heard the roundly debunked jurisdictional argument that the senate cannot try a former official, a position that would mean that any president could simply resign to avoid accountability for an impeachable offense, a position, which in effect, would render the senate powerless to ever enforce the disqualification

clause in the constitution. essentially the president's counsel told the senate that the constitution was unconstitutional. thankfully the senate took a firm stance, set a firm precedent with a bipartisan vote in favor of our power to try former officials for acts they committed while in office. we heard the preposterous claim that the former president's incitement to violence was protected by the first amendment. the first amendment to free speech protects americans from jail, not presidents from impeachment. if the president had said during world war ii, that quote, germany should attack the united states on long island. we've left it undefended. i suspect congress would have considered that an impeachable offense. finally the defense counsel said that president trump was not directly responsible for the violence at the capitol. quote, his words were merely a

metaphor, his directions were merely suggestions, and the violent mob was just a spontaneous demonstration. but wind the clock back and ask yourself if at any point donald trump did not do the things he did with the attack on the capitol have happened? there's only one answer to this question. of course not. if president trump hadn't told his supporters to march to the capitol, if he hadn't implored them to come to washington on january 6th in the first place, if he hadn't repeatedly lied to them that the election was stolen, their country was being taken from them, the attack would not have happened, could not have happened. january 6th would not have happened but for the actions of donald trump. here's what the republican leader of the senate said. the mob that perpetrated the, quote, failed insurrection, unquote, was on january 6th,

was, quote, provoked by president trump. you want another word for provoke? how about incite? yet still -- still -- the vast majority of the senate republican caucus, including the republican leader, voted to acquit former president trump, signing their names in the columns of history alongside his name forever. january 6th will live as a day of infamy in the history of the united states of america. the failure to convict donald trump will live as a vote of infamy in the history of the united states senate. five years ago republican senators lamented what might become of their party if donald trump became their presidential nominee and standard bearer. just look at what has happened. look at what republicans have been forced to defend.

look at what republicans have chosen to forgive. the former president tried to overturn the results of a legitimate election and provoked an assault on our own government, and well over half the senate republican conference decided to condone it. the most despicable act that any president has ever committed and the majority of republicans cannot summon the courage or the morality to condemn it. this trial wasn't about choosing country over party, even not that. this was about choosing country over donald trump. and 43 republican members chose trump. they chose trump. it should be a weight on their conscience today, and it shall be a weight on their conscience

in the future. as sad as that fact is, as con condemnable as the decision was, it is still true that the final vote on donald trump's conviction was the largest and most bipartisan vote of any presidential impeachment trial in american history. i salute those republican patriots who did the right thing. it wasn't easy. we eknow that. let their votes be a message to the american people because, my fellow americans, if this nation is going to long endure, we as a people cannot sanction the former president's congress because if lying about the results of an election is acceptable, if instigating a mob against the government is considered permissible, if encouraging political violence becomes the norm, it will be open season, open season, on our democracy. and everything will be up for grabs by whoever has the biggest

clubs, the sharpest spears, the most powerful guns. i'm not recognizing the heinous crime that donald trump committed against the constitution, republican senators have not only risked but potentially invited the same danger that was just visited upon us. so, let me say this. despite the results of the vote on donald trump's conviction in the court of impeachment, he deserves to be convicted. and i believe he will be convicted in the court of public opinion. he deserves to be permanently discredited, and i believe he has been discredited in the eyes of the american people and in the judgment of history. even though republican senators prevented the senate from disqualifying donald trump from any office of honor, trust or profit under these united states, there is no question

donald trump has disqualified himself. i hope, i pray and i believe that the american people will make sure of that. and if donald trump ever stands for public office again, and after everything we have seen this week, i hope, i pray and i believe that he will meet the unambiguous rejection by the american people. six hours after the attack on january 6th, after the carnage and mayhem was shown on every television screen in america, president trump told his supporters to, quote, remember this day forever. i ask the american people to heed his words. remember that day forever. but not for the reasons the former president intended. remember the panic in the voices

over the radio dispatch, the rhythmic pounding of fists and flags at the chamber doors. remember the crack of a solitary gunshot. remember the hateful and racist confederate flags flying through the halls of our union. remember the screams of the bloody officer crushed between the on rushing mob in a doorway to the capitol, his body trapped in the breach. remember the three capitol police officers who lost their lives. remember that those rioters actually succeeded in delaying congress from certifying the election. remember how close our democracy came to ruin. my fellow americans, remember that day, january 6th, forever. the final terrible legacy of the 45th president of the united

states and undoubtedly our worst. let it live on in infamy, a stain on donald john trump that can never, never be washed away. mr. president, on monday we'll recognize president's day. part of the commemoration in the senate will be the annual reading of washington's farewell address. aside from winning the revolutionary war, i consider it his greatest contribution to american civil life. and it had nothing to do with the words he spoke but the example it set. washington's farewell address established for all time that no one had the right to the office of the presidency, that it belonged to the people. what an amazing legacy.

what an amazing gift to the future generations, the knowledge that this country will always be greater than any one person, even our most renowned. that's why members of both parties take turns reading washington's address once a year in full into the record to pledge common attachment to the selflessness at the core of our democratic system. this trial was about the final acts of a president who represents the very antithesis of our first president and sought to place one man before the entire country, himself. let the record show -- let the record show -- before god, history and the solemn oath we swear to the constitution that there was only one correct verdict in this trial. guilty. and i pray that while justice

was not done in this trial, it will be carried forward by the american people when, above any of us in this chamber, determine the destiny of our great nation. i yield the floor. >> we just heard from the majority leader chuck schumer. i think the minority leader mitch mcconnell -- here he is. >> january 6th was a disgrace. american citizens attacked their own government. they used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of domestic business they did fnot like.

fellow americans beat and bloodied our own police. they stormed the senate floor. they tried to hunt down the speaker of the house. they built a gallows and chanted about murdering. the vice president. they did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth. because he was angry. he had lost an election. former president trump's actions preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. the house accused the former president of, quote, incitement. that is a specific term from the criminal law. let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something i

said weeks ago. there's no question -- none -- that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. no question about it. the people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth. the issue is not only the

president's intemperate language on january 6th. it is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged, quote, trial by combat. it was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe, the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen, some secret coup by our now president. now, i defended the president's rights to bring any complaints to our legal system. the legal system spoke. the electoral college spoke. as i stood up and said clearly at that time, the election was

settled. it was over. but that just really opened a new chapter of even wilder, wilder and more unfounded claims. the leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. sadly many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors. we saw that -- that unhinged listeners might take differently. but that was different. that's different from what we saw. this was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated by outgoing

president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our substi institutions on the way out. the unconscionable behavior did not end with the violence actually began. whatever our ex-president claims he thought might happen that day, whatever reaction he says he meant to produce by that afternoon, we know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. a mob was assaulting the capitol in his name.

these criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. it was obvious he could end this. he was the only one. he was the only one who could. former aides publicly begged him to do so. loyal allies frantically called the administration. the president did not act swiftly. he did not do his job. he didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. no. instead, according to public reports, he watched television

happily -- happily -- as the chaos unfolded. he kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election. even after it was clear any reasonable observer that vice president pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters, the president sent a further tweet attacking his own vice president. now, predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances members of the mob seemed to interpret this as a further inspiration to lawlessness and violence, not surprisingly.

later even when the president did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he didn't call right away for the riot to end. he did not tell the mob to depart until even later. and even then with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals. in recent weeks our ex-president's associates have tried to use the 74 million americans who voted to re-elect him as a kind of human shield against criticism.

using the 74 million who voted for him as a human shield against criticism. anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. that's an absurd deflection. 74 million americans did not invade the capitol. hundreds of rioters did. 74 million americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. one person did. just one. i made my view of this episode very plain. but our system of government gave the senate a specific task.

the constitution gives us a particular role. this body is not invited to act as the nation's overarching moral tribunal. we're not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment. just as joseph story, our nation's first great constitutional scholar, as he explained nearly 200 years ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool, a narrow tool, for a narrow purpose. story explained this limited tool exists to, quote, secure the state against gross official

misdemeanors, end quote. that is to protect the country from government officers. if president trump were still in office, i would have carefully considered whether the house managers proved their specific charge. by the strict criminal standard, the president's speech probably was not incitement. however -- however -- in the context of impeachment, the senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot. but in this case the question is moot because former president trump is constitutionally not

eligible for conviction. now, this is a close question, no doubt. donald trump was the president when the house voted, though not when the house chose to deliver the papers. brilliant scholars argued both sides of this jurisdictional question. the text is legitimately ambiguous. i respect my colleagues who have reached either conclusion. but after intense reflection, i believe the best constitutional reading shows that article ii section 4 exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached, tried or convicted.

it's the president, it's the vice president and civil officers. we have no power to convict and disqualify a former office holder who is now a private citizen. here is article ii section 4. quote, the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, end quote. now, everyone basically agrees that the second half of that sentence exhausts the legitimate grounds for conviction. the debate around the constitution's framing makes that abundantly clear.

congress cannot convict for reasons besides those. it therefore follows that the list of persons in that same sentence is also exhausted. there's no reason why one would list -- one list would be exhaustive but the other would not. article ii section 4 must limit both why impeachment and conviction can occur and to whom. and to whom. if this provision does not limit impeachment and conviction powers, then it has no limits at all. the house has sole power of impeachment and the senate sole power to try all impeachments, would create an unlimited circular logic empowering

congress to ban any private citizen from federal office. now, that's an incredible claim, but if the argument of the house managers seem to be making. one manager said the house and senate have, quote, absolute unqualified jurisdictional power, end quote. well, that was very honest because there's no limit in principle in the constitutional text that would empower the senate to convict former officers that would not also let them convict and disqualify any private citizen. an absurd end result to which no one subscribes. article ii section 4 must have force. it tells us the president, the vice president and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. donald trump's no longer the president.

likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction shall be removed from office if convicted. shall be removed from office if convicted. as justice story explained, the senate, upon conviction, is bound in all cases to enter a judgment of removal from office. removal is mandatory upon conviction. clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to someone who's left office. the entire process revolves around removal. if removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes incenseable.

it seems counterintuitive that office holder can elude by expiration of term, an argument we heard made by the managers. but this underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for american justice. never meant to be the final forum for american justice. impeachment, conviction and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. it is not the criminal justice system or individual accountability is the paramount goal. indeed justice story

specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were -- and this is extremely important -- still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice. put another way in the language of today, president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while in office. didn't get away with anything yet. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.

i believe the senate was not -- was right not to grant power the constitution doesn't give us. and the senate was right not to entertain some light speed sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction. it took both sides more than a week just to produce their pre-trial briefs. speaker pelosi's on-scheduling decisions conceded what president biden publicly confirmed, a senate verdict before inauguration day was never possible. now, mr. president, this has been a disspiriting time, but the senate has done our duty. the framers firewall held up again. on january 6th, we returned to our posts and certified the

election. we were not intimidated. we fin sished the job. and since then we resisted the clamor to defy our own constitutional guardrails in hot pursuit of a particular outcome. we refused to continue a cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in response. the senate's decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day. it simply shows that senators did what the former president

failed to do. we put our constitutional duty first. >> the senator from maryland. >> thank you, mr. president. i take this time to explain why i voted to convict the former president of the united states, donald trump, of the articles of impeachment presented by the house -- >> all right we're going to continue to monitor what's happening on the senate floor. we just heard very, very contradictory statement from the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. on the one hand he said the former president donald trump behaved disgracefully, committed a dereliction of duty, he was morally responsible, practically responsible for the january 6th riot that developed on capitol hill, the inrecollection.

but at the same time he voted not guilty. he voted not guilty despite the fact what he was saying sounded much like what the house impeachment managers were saying, a very, very contradictory statement from the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. spoke for about 20 minutes. at the end he did say trump still potentially could face punishment. he said there is a criminal justice system in the country and trump now is a private citizen. potentially he could face some sort of criminal justice. a former president, he said, is a private citizen. it's interesting that seven republican senators, seven republican senators -- we can put their pictures up on the screen. senator richard burr, bill cassidy, susan collins, lisa murkowski, mitt romney, ben sasse, pat toomey, they voted guilty. they said that trump was guilty of insurrection, guilty of incitement of insurrection and

as a result they totally disagreed with the conclusion of mitch mcconnell, who basically cite cited what he called the constitution, that he was not really eligible for a guilty conviction, even though he did horrible, horrible things. dana, we watch all of this unfold. and there's going to be a lot of fallout from all of this. but it's significant that seven republican senators did vote with all 50 democrats in favor of a guilty verdict. >> it's very significant. and it is the most bipartisan vote in any impeachment history. and we heard that from the majority leader chuck schumer on the floor. and the fact that there were seven republicans was a bit of a surprise. we're going to talk about that here with david chalian and abby phillip. but as we discuss that, the fact that there were seven and the fact that the now minority

leader mitch mcconnell came out and gave that incredibly, you know, powerful speech about how incensed he was, almost sounding as if he was giving a speech after voting to convict -- >> right. >> and he wasn't. he was giving a speech after he voted to acquit. imagine a couple of things. imagine if he would have given that speech after voting to convict. as the republican leader, that would have given many more republicans political cover to vote the same way. and it's not that big of a stretch to think that the 57 could have been 67 and donald trump would have been convicted. instead what mcconnell did was hang it on a process argument, saying that -- and he argues that it's a constitutional argument that a former president can't be convicted of impeachment, leaving out the fact that he was still in charge of the senate schedule when the house voted to impeach then

sitting president trump. and he made very clear he was not going to bring the senate back from recess and therefore they had no choice but to have a trial for a former president. >> i think we should also be clear with folks at home that despite what mcconnell was saying about the constitutional argument, there is not real will you a hot legal debate about whether this is constitutional or not. the reality is that the vast majority of legal scholars believe it is in fact constitutional. the majority of republican senators for political reasons largely disagree. i also think -- let me start with this. the other senator, richard burr, who voted against the constitutionality game to a completely different conclusion from mitch mcconnell. he came to the conclusion that the senate had already settled that decision. they already voted on it, and it's settled now, that it is constitutional and that because

of that, looking at trump's conduct, taking the case that mitch mcconnell just made so powerfully, he concluded that trump violated his oath of office, that he imperilled a co-equal branch of government, that it rose to a high crime and a misdemeanor. and so it's clear that mcconnell actually agrees with that, that it's a high crime and a misdemeanor, but he's hinging this so he can have it both ways on the constitutional argument that doesn't have that much leg. >> and that the senate voted on. this was up for a vote in the united states senate earlier this week. hou house manager raskin said once that's done, that issue is done. they had come to a conclusion. not one he was on the winning side of, i understand. but the senate as a body put the constitutional question to the side and said it is constitutional, so now it moved forward. as you're noting, richard burr

said, okay, clean slate. let me adjudicate the evidence. mitch mcconnell didn't do that even though the body voted that way. he didn't say clean slate because you can't say, as mitch mcconnell just did, that donald trump is practically and morally responsible and not come to the conclusion to convict if the senate says it's constitutional. but he's going back saying no, i don't like that i lost that vote. i still believe it's not constitutional. so, that is -- it's just a clear, as you said, for political purposes loophole to where he clearly believes that there should be accountability here for donald trump. and they are opting, through a loophole of their own making that is not widely agreed upon, to find a way to not hold donald trump accountable. >> can we just talk about mitch mcconnell for a second and the idea that he said all of these things about what trump did. he called it foreseeable that the events of january 6th were a natural outgrowth of trump's

lies. and yet the reality is, if you were alive for the last two months, mitch mcconnell said almost nothing about these lies. for a month after the election, after it was clear that joe biden won the election, mitch mcconnell refused to acknowledge that joe biden was the president-elect. he said nothing after that about the web of lies that was being spun not just by trump but by members -- by his colleagues. you know, his conference in the senate. and so the idea that now as we sit here, oh, all of a sudden, oh my god, it was foreseeable. that was his word, foreseeable, that all of this would have happened. it should have been foreseeable to him. and the question now is why didn't he do now? why didn't he say more? why didn't he condemn this as early as possible? >> right. and you're saying between election day or at least the day that cnn and other outlets declared joe biden the president-elect and the day in

december, december 14th, when the electoral college certified that joe biden was going to be the president. you're exactly right. i mean, look, one of the hallmarks of the trump era has been people looking for republican leaders to stand up to him and to stand up to his lies. mitch mcconnell just did that in a very blistering way. but just imagine what would have happened if he would have done that november 5th, november 10th or even more aggressively, you know, before december 14th and even afterwards. i mean, it's possible that the insurrection maybe wouldn't even have taken place. we won't know. we'll never know the answer to that question. and it is because the only thing that we heard for at least that month was silence from those who clearly we now know, like mcconnell, disagreed with the president. and as he called it, the loudest

and largest megaphone spewing lies. >> yeah, creating -- helping to create the political environment that allowed donald trump to still march forward with the ig lie. mitch mcconnell helped create that environment for a month. you don't -- i don't know why he thinks he deserves extra credit after the electoral college met to say, oh, now i can tell you joe biden really won the election. we were so far down the road of donald trump creating the big lie already at that point -- i know mcconnell says he got even more wild after that point of the electoral college -- >> and he's also arguing that they had all of these legal suits, these lawsuits, the trump legal team that got pushed back, about 60 of them. so, it was the combination of that and the electoral college. >> legal challenges could have played out and mitch mcconnell could have acknowledged the reality of the election all at the same time. those two things could have

happened simultaneously. so, he is looking -- he is looking in this speech, this just astonishing speech to be on the right side of history with the wrong vote as all the facts were out there. and that -- he's looking to solidify a place in history that i did scold donald trump. take a look at my remarks. >> yeah. >> but there was this constitutional cop out i used to not get on the wrong side of this. >> so, there were seven republicans, including, as you said, richard burr, which was a big surprise. he's a republican senator from north carolina, retiring. we didn't know he was going to vote the way he did. but he voted guilty. also louisiana republican senator bill cassidy. he issued a one-sentence statement on why he voted to convict. he said, our constitution and our country is more important than any one person. i voted to convict president trump because he is guilty. and then let's talk about richard burr, part of his statement. he said, by what he did, meaning

trump, and by what he did not do, president trump violated his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. very strong words from these tried and true republicans from red states. i mean, north carolina, maybe you could say is on the bubble and also richard burr is not facing voters anymore because he retired. bill cassidy might. he's from louisiana. and -- >> not for six more years. >> not for six more years, but i'm guessing that the base has a long memory. >> yeah, i mean, look, it's not the politically popular, whether you are retiring or not. we know in washington retirement means you just need to find another line of work in the political sphere that usually requires republicans to have your back. it's not an easy thing to do what they did. i was struck by how strong richard burr's statement was because he made a clear connection -- a lot of the same connections the impeachment managers did.

he said the crowd became violent, the president used his office to inflame the situation instead of immediately calling for an end to the assault. so, all throughout both the lie, the incitement at the riot, the failure to act, richard burr says all of those things rise to a high crime and misdemeanor. and i think that that is one of the clearest statements. i was also struck by ben sasse making a really important point about where we go from here, which is does the congress have the power that it thinks that it does? impeachment is a really powerful tool. but now three times it has failed to remove a president. and in this case on the most serious of charges failed to remove and convict someone on the most serious possible charges, an inrecollection aga insurrection against the government.

and ben sasse asked the congress if they believe in coequal branches of government because so many handed the keys over with their vote today. >> we should note the difference between donald trump's first impeachment a year ago and now with republican votes. it went from zero republican votes in the house to ten this time around. it went from one -- you look at that graphic of the seven senators. it was just mitt romney's face on that graphic a year ago of republicans voting to convict donald trump to seven. he now has gathered six more of his colleagues into this group. so, there's no doubt that the egregious display of the violation of oath that donald trump partook in during his time in office at the end here in the lead up to the insurrection and thereafter had an effect on his own party, just not as big of an effect to actually peel off enough to come through with a conviction. >> yeah, i mean quite a day, a day for the history books,

aaron. and the fact is that we didn't expect seven republicans to vote against the president of their party. but still it's ten short of actual conviction. and that is what is going to be remembered for the history books, how each of these senators voted, never mind what they said in their statements. >> that's absolutely true. and let me just go to russ garber here since you've been involved in so many proceedings. we were just talking about this. mitch mcconnell gives this impassioned argument as if he were a house impeachment manager and yet votes to acquit based on const constitutionality. >> yeah, and after this process now, the question of whether you can impeach and try and convict a former official is still clear as mud. basically what happened this time was the same thing that

happened the previous time this was tried in the 1800s in the case where in that situation a lot of senators thought there was no jurisdiction. but most senators thought there was jurisdiction. so, the senate took jurisdiction. belknap, there was no question he was guilty in that case, but he was acquitted. and most of those who acquitted him said they did it for the mccond mcconnell reason. they did it because they thought there was no jurisdiction. some took the burr path and said we don't think there's jurisdiction, but we're still voting guilty on the merits because the senate as a institution decided there's jurisdiction. so, that issue is still in the air. >> the other thing about this is you can go the burr path or the mcconnell path. mcconnell is the one who set us on this path because he is the one who could have called the

senate back while donald trump was president of the united states and done this while he was president. >> that's right. >> so, he waited until afterwards to excoriate him and say, but it's too late. >> right. and then he waited for weeks, if you'll recall to call joe biden president-elect. i think it was more than 50 days or whatever it was. mitch mcconnell wants to have it both ways. he's above all else a political creature. he hates donald trump. and he let that be known today talking about the former president's reckless hyperbole which he shouted into the largest megaphone on planet earth. but mitch mcconnell thinks politically. so, let me say a few things here. one is he made it very clear that trump is still liable for everything he did while in office. he didn't get away with anything, comma, yet, ellipses. what is he saying to us there? he is saying das, courts,

whatever have it. have at him. do what you will. you want to sue him one way or another, do what you will. there's another thought here. perhaps he wanted to convict but because of his position in the senate -- remember what liz cheney went through -- he wanted to keep his party together more and that he feels he has a better shot of a, staying in leadership, and b, getting rid of donald trump out of politics in a way if he maintains this position. so, he might have been afraid for his own leadership skin because if he had voted the other way he might have been out. but i think he wants the republican party to reinvent itself and perhaps -- now, i don't want to give him too much credit here, but this might be a better way of getting rid of donald trump than the other way. now, i don't -- i don't know. i can't -- i can't read his mind. but he's a party guy and he wants trump out of there. you can make the other case too

that convicting him would have really gotten him out of it. but it could have also emboldened a lot of his supporters. and maybe he wanted to keep the temperature at a different level. so, there are lots of things going on. >> well, and of course trump has been quiet recently, but he's already put out a statement saying, now you're going to hear a lot more from me. for those republicans who thought, he's gone, he can't win again, he's quiet. no, the beast is rearing its head. what do you see as the main take away here especially now that we heard from senator mcconnell. but we do have statements from burr, from sasse, from romney. >> my take away is that the audacity of an acquittal is appalling. for mcconnell to stand up there and confirm every iota of what was said by the house impeachment managers and then say, but he's no longer in office, now biden, justice department and state level prosecutors can all handle what we have now punted. imagine.

frame it again. not more than two days ago those senators stood up and gave a round of applause, a standing ovation to officers who protected the capitol, whose mission it is to ensure that they can safely carry out their constitutional and legislative obligations. they demonstrated not even an eighth of the cowardice -- they had far more bravery than what we saw right now in the senate. they were absolutely political cowards. and why? they were more comfortable with political incumbency than physical and personal safety. they all agree that they've met their burden. they've made the case. it was a high crime and misdemeanor. imagine if those officers at the capitol had said, you know, i don't know if we have jurisdiction to protect you right now. we might be off duty soon. what should we do? imagine the infamy of january 6th then. so, i really had to tell you it is appalling as a prosecutor to know that the case was proven.

and then for mitch mcconnell to stand up there and echo the same sentiment and then say, but i'd like to have it both ways, i mean, it's just mind boggling. what it does is show you how important it was to have this impeachment because it was never just about conviction or acquittal. it was also about what the senators stood for and what they were willing to sit on their hands for. >> and ellie, it's also very interesting, had things gone even a little bit differently on that day, had they succeeded in killing a member of congress or speak r or the vice president, none of this would be in question. but now because that didn't happen, they found a way to look the other way as a body, the republican party. >> and mitch mcconnell's speech there was a perfect example of that. he gave a heck of a closing for conviction until he copped out. and his cop out to me raising two institutional questions for the senate. they voted four days ago. they debated is this constitutional to try a former official, and they voted yes.

is the senate bound by its own rulings or a free for all? that's a question for the senate. then he said ill there still could be prosecutions. of course we don't need mitch mcconnell to tell us that. we have the fulton county d.a. investigating, the justice department investigating potentially, potentially have the d.c. attorney general investigating. but he's not saying anything that's not already true. he's looking for various ways to deflect. >> what's worse is after burr. burr came out and said we decided and that was the decided issue on the constitutional question. so, then i had to look at everything else. and he's guilty. what mcconnell did was say, yeah, they decided on the constitutional issue, but i still disagree. well, that's -- he's the leader of the senate so he knows what's happening there. >> now he's saying that any time the senate makes a ruling that can't be appealed, the senators are free to disregard it at their whim. >> you set a hell of a precedent just now mitch mcconnell.

i wonder if he meant to. >> i want to go to jaime. your reporting about the call between the reporting about the call between president trump and kevin mccarthy. what are you hearing from your sources? >> i've been speaking to several republicans and i want to underscore something that gloria just said about mitch mcconnell's statement where he said he didn't get away with anything yet. a number of republicans who were in favor of conviction have texted me to say, remember this is not over with the impeachment. there is an fbi investigation happening. justice is going to weigh in. and if you take a look at donald trump's statement today, you'll notice there's not one word of remorse or regret. and a former justice department

source said to me, doj, department of justice doesn't look kindly upon that. this may be the beginning. we've seen what's happening in georgia. i want to point out one other thing i'm hearing about. and that is there are certain people. you have to wonder how they're feeling about the acquittal. the ten republican house members who voted to impeach. officer goodman and all the capitol hill police officers, the people who lost their lives, officer sicknick's family and last but not least, mike pence. and i just want to remind everyone earlier this week i spoke to republican sources, senior republican on the hill, who said to me, if they don't vote to convict, they're not listening and they don't want to

listen. and i think by listening to mitch mcconnell's closing statement, which could have been given by one of the house managers, they didn't want to listen. erin. >> it is incredible. when you think about this and mcconnell coming out and saying trump's actions are disgraceful dereliction of duty. he is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. just to remind everybody watching here, 65 d.c. police officers were injured. >> right. >> in this riot, right? more than 70 capitol police officers were hurt. these are the numbers from the "washington post." you have had suicides. people died. >> right. >> and i just want to remind people of exactly what mitch mcconnell just said. >> president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office. didn't get away with anything

yet. >> except for, jamie, he did because you now have the senate saying that a president of the united states is able to be completely liable and responsible for these things and still not be removed from being president of the united states. >> 100% and it wasn't too many days ago that they were paying tribute to officer sicknick in the capitol where he was lying in honor. i would say that what we saw today was that donald trump still has control over the republican party. they are still scared of him. they are still worried about his base. they could have been rid of him. today was the day. they could have voted to convict and voted to keep him from running again. but they chose not to do it. >> they did choose not to. and obviously there were seven who went the other way. burr was completely unexpected. cassidy could have gone the

other way. those seven did stand tall. obviously as you say, not enough. not enough republicans. wolf, back to you. >> erin thanks very much. we're standing by momentarily we're told the house impeachment managers, nine of them, will go before the microphones. we're standing by for that. john, i think it's really significant that seven republican senators did vote to convict donald trump of incitement of insurrection. remember a year ago in the first impeachment trial, just one. >> those seven incredibly consequential plus the house republicans who voted to impeach, 17 vocal voices as we move into the next chapter. still the party of trump. mitch mcconnell trying to straddle, i don't know what to make of that, saying he wants somebody else to take trump off the battlefield. he's still liable. he hasn't gotten away with

anything yet. so mitch mcconnell trying to find middle ground. these seven republican senators w , one on the ballot in 2022. the question is are they willing to plant their flag in this fight. but you have senator cassidy, senator collins, senator me murkowski, sasse and romney still in the senate. how vocal are they willing to be? it is the party of trump. that is the unmistakable conclusion today. only ten republicans in the house. only seven republicans in the senate. as you know well more than the first trump impeachment trial, a clear sign that there's a divide in the party and a fight to play out. the former president said in his statement, he called it a witch hunt again. he says we'll be hearing more from him. so, i said today is the moment of choosing. the choice has been made. donald trump has been acquitted for the second time. he's still been impeached twice. you can't take that amway. he still did everything he did. i'm fascinated to see how these

seven republican senators, how active they decide to be going forward. >> and we're going to hear from the house impeachment managers momentarily. we're told they're about to walk out. and let's not forget earlier today they did move to call witnesses, or at least one witness, before this trial. but then a couple hours later they decided didn't necessarily need to do this. >> i'm fascinated about this. a lot of members of the democratic base were furious about this. they thought they finally stood up, were going to have witnesses, accountability and there was the pull back. a lot of leaders blaming chuck schumer for this. it will be fascinating to hear how the managers say this played out. the reporting is they got to a point but there wasn't a clear plan. they negotiated the compromise. it will be fascinating to see how much they're willing to get into the details of that and the

take on this. >> i'm sure they're going to be asked a bunch of questions by reporters assuming they answer reporters' questions about this flip from yes, we need witnesses, but never mind we can move without witnesses. let's get this thing over with right away. i'm sure to a certain degree president biden and his team are relieved they can now go ahead with confirmation in the senate. they can go ahead with their coronavirus relief package. there's stuff they need the senate to do. >> we were just talking about what is a very visceral divide in the republican party. there are also divides within the democratic party about how -- >> hold on. >> -- they should have been doing this. there's the lead manager. >> there's jamie raskin, and the others are walking in behind him. >> hello everyone. i want to start by thanking the american people for engaging so

seriously with this process. and i want to thank members of the senate and i want to thank the members of the house and i want to thank the terrific members of the house impeachment manager team. trump stormed our house with the mob he incited and we defended our house. and he violated our constitution, and we defended the constitution. and they tried to trash our democracy, and we revived it. and we protected it. this was the most bipartisan presidential impeachment in the history of the united states, and we know that impeachment, for reasons that we could explore at some other time, often becomes partisan. but this was the most bipartisan presidential impeachment event in the history of the country. it was also the largest senate vote for a presidential

impeachment, 57-43, and of course the vote to impeach was 232-197 in the house. so, we have a clear and convincing majority of members of congress that the president actually incited violent insurrection against the union and against the congress. senator mitch mcconnell just went to the floor essentially to say that we made our case on the facts, that he believed that donald trump was practically and morally responsible for inciting the events of january 6th. he described it as we did, as a disgraceful dereliction of duty, a desertion of his office. and he made a series of statements that we didn't even make, saying that this was not over yet by a long shot, essentially, and that there was the path of criminal prosecution